THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Religion  and  Drink 


By 
THE  REV.  E.  A.  WASSON,  Ph.D. 

Rector  of 

St.  Stephen's  Episcopai.  Church 

Newark,  N.  J. 


Search  the  scriptures. — John  5.39. 

Lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to  benighting  against  God. — Acts  5.39. 

The  truth  shall  make  you  free, — John  8.32. 


New  York 

BURR  PRINTING  HOUSE 

1914 


Copyright,  1914,  By 
E.  A.  Wasson 


THE   PREFACE 

The  word  drink  in  this  book  means  those  alco- 
holic beverages  spoken  of  in  the  Bible.  The  con- 
clusions apply,  strictly,  only  to  those  particular 
beverages.  But,  naturally,  they  apply,  by  analogy, 
for  certain  purposes,  to  other  alcoholic  drinks 
that  are  no  more  hazardous.  For  example;  if 
wine  is  right,  beer  is. 

In  the  composition  of  this  book  I  gratefully  ac- 
knowledge valuable  suggestions  from  my  learned 
friend,  Mr.  Walter  J.  Kidd. 

What  is  God's  will  for  us  in  the  matter  of 
drink?  This  book  is  an  attempt  to  answer  that 
question ;  and  no  other. 

As  far  as  I  know,  mine  is  the  first  examination 
of  this  question,  on  so  extensive  a  scale,  in  the 
English  language.  This  is  remarkable,  too,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  religious  aspect  of  the 
drink  question  is  the  really  vital  and  critical  one 
for  millions  and  millions  of  people;  and  of  the 
further  fact  that  around  all  other  sides  of  the 
question  veritable  libraries  have  been  built  up. 

The  answer  I  seek  in  the  Bible  and  the  Church ; 
— the  Church,  I  say,  not  some  division  of  it;  but 
the  Church  as  a  whole,  the  Church  Universal. 

The  chapters  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
may  look  hard  and  uninteresting,  because  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  words  recurring  so  frequently. 
But,  after  all,  there  are  only  four  of  these,  and 

3 


4  PREFACE 

a  little  attention  to  them  will  not  only  overcome 
the  very  slight  difficulty,  but  will  place  the  Eng- 
lish reader  in  as  favorable  a  situation  for  judging 
the  Bible  evidence  on  the  subject  of  drink  as  the 
student  of  Hebrew  and  Greek.  Without  the  cita- 
tion of  these  few  original  words  I  do  not  see  how 
this  could  be  done.  And  no  one  with  any  serious 
interest  in  the  subject  will  begrudge  the  slight 
labor  called  for  in  these  chapters. 

All  I  ask  is  that  my  readers  read  this  book  with 
open  minds,  knowing  that  only  error  and  wrong 
shun  the  light.  However  passionate  our  convic- 
tions, we  should  surrender  them,  if  proved  wrong, 
as  loyal  servants  of  Him  who  enjoins  us  to  cut  off 
hand  or  foot,  yes,  to  pluck  out  the  eye,  that  offend, 
and  cast  them  from  us. 

Not  only  ought  we  to  surrender  our  error ;  we 
shall  have  to  surrender  it  sooner  or  later,  willy- 
nilly.  For  this  we  may  be  sure  of, — God's  way 
will  stand,  not  ours.  Our  passions,  prejudices, 
ignorances  will  injure  ourselves;  they  will  injure 
others ;  they  will  retard  the  truth ;  but  prevail  they 
will  not.  At  last  we  must  come  to  God's  way 
and  God's  truth.  At  last  we  must  come  to  it;  why 
not,  rather,  at  first? 

Bias  and  passion,  then,  in  this  matter  should 
be  put  away.  They  merely  impede  a  good  cause ; 
one  who  believes  he  is  right  can  afford  to  be  mod- 
erate and  calm.  The  theologian,  at  the  court  of 
James  I.,  who  was  being  worsted  in  the  argument, 
spat  in  his  opponent's  face.  ''That",  said  the 
latter,  quietly  wiping  his  cheek  with  his  handker- 
chief, "is  only  a  digression.  Let  us  now  resume 
the  argument". 


PBEFACE  5 

Does  God  forbid  or  allow  alcoholic  drink?  It 
is  not  for  you  or  me  to  say;  it  is  for  God's  Word 
and  God's  Churcli.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony! If  they  speak  not  according  to  this  ivord, 
surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them  (Is.  8.20). 

In  what  quarter  lies  the  morning?  In  what,  the 
night? 

Newark,  N.  J.  e.  a.  wasson. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Peeface    .         .         .         .....        3 


PART  ONE— THE  BIBLE 

CHAPTER   I 

The  Old  Testament  Itself       ....        9 

CHAPTER   II 
Outside    Authorities        .....       44 

CHAPTER    III 

The  Gospels     .......       68 

CHAPTER   IV 
The  Epistles    .......      97 

PART  TWO— THE  CHURCH 

CHAPTER   I 
The  Primitive  Church     .....     131 

CHAPTER   II 

The  Fathers    .         .         .         •         .        t..        ,.     140 

CHAPTER   III 
The  Middle  Ages     .....;.     159 

CHAPTER   IV 
The  Reformation      .......     164 


8  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER   V 
The  Temperance  Movement      ....     185 

CHAPTER   VI 
Prohibition      .......     204 

CHAPTER   VII 
Intemperance  .......     223 

PART  THREE— THE  TRUTH  OF  THE 
GOSPEL 

CHAPTER    I 
Religion  and  Law     ......     244 

CHAPTER   II 
Character  and  Coddling  .....     269 

CHAPTER   III 

The  New  and  Living  Way      ....  281 

Conclusion 293 

Index 299 


PART  ONE 

THE   BIBLE 


CHAPTEE   I 

THE    OLD   TESTAMENT   ITSELF 

If  the  English  version  of  the  Old  Testament  rep- 
resents the  original  Hebrew  correctly,  then  wine 
and  *' strong  drink"  are,  in  these  Scriptures,  some- 
times approved  and  sometimes  condemned.  Isaiah 
thinks  well  of  wine  when  he  prophesies  (Is.  25.6), 
*'In  this  mountain  will  Jehovah  of  hosts  make  unto 
all  peoples  a  feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wines 
on  the  lees,  of  fat  things  full  of  marrow,  of  wines 
on  the  lees  well  refined".  He  would  no  more  have 
written  thus  of  wine,  if  he  had  thought  ill  of  it, 
than  a  white  ribboner  of  today  would  hold  forth 
an  abundance  of  superior  whiskey  as  a  charm  of 
the  millenium. 

Very  different  are  the  words  of  Proverbs  (20.1) 
about  these  beverages :  ' '  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong 
drink  a  brawler". 

Other  passages  could  be  cited  for  both  these 
sentiments. 

There  are  three  possible  explanations  of  this 
seeming  discord.  First,  the  sacred  writers  really 
disagreed  about  wine  and  ''strong  drink".  Sec- 
ond, where  they  seem  to  disagree,  they  are,  in 
fact,  talking  of  different  things.    Third,  they  are 

9 


10  THE  BIBLE 

talking  of  the  same  thing,  but  the  one  is  speaking 
of  its  proper  use  and  the  other  of  its  misuse. 

The  first  supposition, — that  the  sacred  writers 
contradict  each  other, — will  be  rejected  by  all  who 
believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
need  not  be  examined.  The  second  supposition, — 
that  where  one  praises  and  the  other  censures  wine 
they  are  speaking  of  two  entirely  different  bev- 
erages, clearly  distinguished  in  the  Hebrew,  but 
confused  under  one  head  in  our  English  transla- 
tion,— has  been  vigorously  maintained,  and  will 
now  be  examined  in  some  detail.  Let  not  the 
reader  be  frightened  off  from  this  examination  by 
its  statistical  and  monotonous  appearance,  for  it 
is  important.  Besides,  it  will  be  easy  and  interest- 
ing, if  you  really  care  to  go  into  the  subject. 

The  English  word  wine,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
represents  eleven  Hebrew  words ;  or,  if  we  use  the 
Eevised  Version,  either  English  or  American, 
eight  Hebrew  words.  The  term  ''strong  drink" 
always  represents  the  same  Hebrew  word.  Of  the 
words  for  wine  two  are  very  common,  and  it  is 
admitted  by  all  that  these  two  are  decisive  as  to 
the  issue  in  hand.  To  them,  therefore,  we  shall 
confine  ourselves.  These  words  are  yayin  and 
tirosh.  It  is  contended  that  yayin  stands  for 
fermented  wine,  and  tirosh  for  unfermented 
grape-juice,  the  one  alcoholic  and  the  other 
non-alcoholic;  and  that  the  wine  which  is  praised 
in  the  Old  Testament  is  tirosh,  whereas  yayin  is 
condemned  and  forbidden.  If  this  is  so,  the  Old 
Testament  enjoins  total  abstinence,  and  its  saints 
and  seers  practised  it.    If  this  is  so,  too,  the  trans- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  11 

lators  of  the  Bible,  not  only  into  Engiisli,  but  into 
all  other  languages,  ancient  and  modern,  have  been 
guilty  of  grievous  sin  or  grievous  ignorance  in 
failing  to  make  this  vital  distinction  as  clear  in 
their  translations  as  it  was  in  the  original.  They 
have  thus  confused  light  and  darkness,  good  and 
evil,  to  the  peril  of  souls.  It  must  have  happened 
in  numberless  instances  that  the  supposed  word 
of  God,  in  place  of  a  guide  to  salvation,  became 
thus  a  lure  to  destruction. 


Yayin. — This  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament 
nearly  150  times.  The  following  passages  prove 
that  yayin  could  intoxicate: 

And  Noah  .  .  .  drank  of  the  yayin,  and 
was  drunken  (Gen.  9.20-21). 

The  two  daughters  of  Lot  ''made  their  father 
drink  yayin",  till  he  did  not  know  what  he  was 
doing  (Gen.  19.32-35). 

Eli  (1  Sam.  1.14),  mistaking  Hannah's  excite- 
ment, ''said  unto  her.  How  long  wilt  thou  be 
drunken?  put  away  thy  yayin  from  thee".  To 
this  she  replied,  ' '  I  have  drunk  neither  yayin  nor 
strong  drink".  This  passage  shows  that  "strong 
drink"  also  could  intoxicate. 

"Nabal's  heart  was  merry  within  him,  for  he 
was  very  drunken ;  wherefore  Abigail  [his  wife] 
told  him  nothing,  less  or  more,  until  the  morning 
light.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  morning,  when 
the  yayin  was  gone  out  of  Nabal,  that  his  wife 
told  him  these  things,  and  his  heart  died  within 
him,  and  he  became  as  a  stone"  (1  Sam.  25.36-37). 


12  THE  BIBLE 

The  Psalmist  declares  (Ps.  60.3), 

Thou  hast  showed  thy  people  hard  things: 
Thou  hast  made  us  to  drink  the  yayin  of  stag- 
gering. 

And  Proverbs, 

Yayin  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  a  brawler 
(Pro.  20.1). 

Who  hath  woe  ?  who  hath  sorrow  f  who  hath  con- 
tentions ? 

Who  hath  complaining?  who  hath  wounds  with- 
out cause? 

Who  hath  redness  of  eyes? 

They  that  tarry  long  at  the  yayin; 
They  that  go  to  seek  out  mixed  wine. 

Look  not  thou  upon  the  yayin  when  it  is  red, 

When  it  sparkleth  in  the  cup, 

When  it  goeth  down  smoothly : 

At  the  last  it  biteth  like  a  serpent, 

And  stingeth  like  an  adder  (Pro.  23.29-32). 

And  here  is  one  of  the  "oracles'*  that  the 
mother  of  king  Lemuel  taught  him  (Pro.  31.4) : 

It  is  not  for  kings,  0  Lemuel,  it  is  not  for 

kings  to  drink  yayin; 
Nor  for  princes  to  say,  Where  is  strong  drink? 

Isaiah  adds  his  witness,  ''Woe  unto  them  that 
rise  up  early  in  the  morning,  that  they  may  follow 
strong  drink;  that  tarry  late  into  the  night,  till 
yayin  inflame  them". — Is.  5.11. 

''Woe  to  the  crown  of  pride  of  the  drunkards 
of  Ephraim,  and  to  the  fading  flower  of  his  glori- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  13 

ous  beauty,  which  is  on  the  head  of  the  fat  valley 
of  them  that  are  overcome  with  yayin!"  (Is.  28.1) 

"And  even  these  reel  with  yayin,  and  stagger 
with  strong  drink ;  the  priest  and  the  prophet  reel 
with  strong  drink,  they  are  swallowed  up  of  yayin, 
they  stagger  with  strong  drink"  (Is.  28.7). 

Jeremiah  (23.9)  compares  himself  to  "a 
drunken  man,  and  like  a  man  whom  yayin  hath 
overcome ' '. 

The  same  prophet  is  ordered  by  Jehovah  to 
*  *  take  this  cup  of  the  yayin  of  wrath  at  my  hand, 
and  cause  all  the  nations,  to  whom  I  send  thee, 
to  drink  it.  And  they  shall  drink,  and  reel  to  and 
fro,  and  be  mad"  (Jer.  25.15-16). 

By  Jeremiah  also  Jehovah  declares :  ' '  Babylon 
hath  been  a  golden  cup  in  Jehovah's  hand,  that 
made  all  the  earth  drunken:  the  nations  have 
drunk  of  her  yayin;  therefore  the  nations  are 
mad"  (Jer.  51.7). 

Hosea  plainly  asserts  that  ''whoredom  and 
yayin  and  new  wine  take  away  the  understanding" 
(Hos.  4.11).  And  in  7.5  he  tells  how  "the  princes 
made  themselves  sick  with  the  heat  of  yayin". 

Joel  taunts  the  drunkards  because  the  vineyards 
have  been  destroyed:  "Awake,  ye  drunkards, 
and  weep ;  and  wail,  all  ye  drinkers  of  yayin,  be- 
cause of  the  sweet  wine ;  for  it  is  cut  off  from  your 
mouth"  (Joel  1.5). 

If  the  translation  by  the  Eevised  Version  of 
Habbakuk  2.5,  be  accepted,  then  "yayin  is  treach- 
erous, a  haughty  man,  that  keepeth  not  at  home ; 
who  enlargeth  his  desire  as  Sheol,  and  he  is  as 


14  THE  BIBLE 

death,  and  cannot  be  satisfied,  but  gathereth  unto 
him  all  nations,  and  heapeth  unto  him  all  peoples". 

Now  it  would  be  too  preposterous  to  say  of 
beverages  like  water  or  milk  or  fresh  grape  juice 
that  they  were  "treacherous",  to  compare  them 
to  "  a  haughty  man,  that  keepeth  not  at  home ;  who 
enlargeth  his  desire  as  Sheol,  and  he  is  as  death 
and  cannot  be  satisfied",  and  to  say  the  other  ter- 
rible things  about  them  that  the  passages  quoted 
say  about  yayin.  Yayin  is  plainly  something  that 
can  intoxicate.  It  is  wine,  just  what  people  mean 
today  and  always  have  meant  by  wine,  the  wine 
that  comes  from  the  grape. 

These  passages  show,  too,  that  "strong  drink" 
was  different  from  this  alcoholic  wine,  but  that  it 
likewise  could  intoxicate.  Scholars  are  not  agreed 
as  to  what  it  was.  Many  think  it  was  a  wine  made 
from  dates,  the  same  as  is  made  today  by  Mo- 
hammedans who  have  not  the  fear  of  their  Prophet 
before  them.  Others  think  that  "strong  drink" 
was  made  from  pomegranates;  still  others,  that 
it  was  a  beer,  or  ale,  brewed  from  barley,  such  as 
was  anciently  made  in  Egypt.  But,  whatever  it 
was,  "strong  drink"  could  intoxicate,  and  it 
stands  or  falls  with  yayin. 

But  this  is  not  all  the  Old  Testament  has  to 
say  about  yayin.  It  has  much  more  and  of  quite 
a  different  tenor.  For  example,  we  read  (Gen. 
14.18)  that  "  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  brought 
forth  bread  and  yayin :  and  he  was  priest  of  God 
Most  High",  and  gave  them  to  Abram  and  his 
followers. 

Of  another  worthy,  the  dying  Isaac,  Gen.  27.25 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  15 

tells   how   Jacob   ''brought   him   yayin,    and   he 
drank". 

Jacob,  in  his  final  blessing,  prophesies  for 
Judah  (Gen.  49.12), 

His  eyes  shall  be  red  with  yayin. 
And  his  teeth  white  with  milk. 

This  means  that  Judah  shall  drink  yayin  even 
to  the  point  of  exhilaration. 

Most  significant  is  the  fact  that  Jehovah  re- 
quires yayin  to  be  offered  to  himself  twice  daily, 
as  an  ordinance  forever,  in  the  sacrifice.  Here  is 
a  passage  ordaining  this  as  divine  law:  "Now 
this  is  that  which  thou  shalt  offer  upon  the  altar : 
.  .  .  The  one  lamb  thou  shalt  offer  in  the  morn- 
ing; and  the  other  lamb  thou  shalt  offer  at  even: 
.  .  .  and  the  fourth  part  of  a  hin  of  yayin  for 
a  drink-offering"  (Ex.  29.38-40). 

On  the  sabbath  Jehovah  required  that  the  quan- 
tity of  his  yayin  be  doubled  (Num.  28.9). 

But  Jehovah  was  not  content  with  yayin  at  these 
daily  sacrifices, — he  demanded  yayin  also  with  the 
occasional  offerings:  "When  ye  .  .  .  will 
make  an  offering  by  fire  unto  Jehovah,  a  burnt- 
offering,  or  a  sacrifice  to  accomplish  a  vow,  or  as 
a  free-will  offering,  or  in  your  set  feasts  .  . 
then  shall  he  that  offereth  his  oblation  offer  unto 
Jehovah  .  .  .  yayin  for  the  drink  offering, 
the  fourth  part  of  a  hin  .  .  ,  the  third  part  of 
a  hin  of  yayin,  of  a  sweet  savor  unto  Jehovah 
.  half  a  hin  [the  quantity  depending  on 
whether  a  lamb  or  a  ram  or  a  bullock  was  offered] 


16  THE  BIBLE 

.  .  .  and  thou  shalt  offer  for  the  drink-offering 
half  a  hin  of  yayin"  (Num.  15.2-10). 

When  the  sheaf  of  the  firstfruits  was  waved  by 
the  priest,  Jehovah  required  yayin:  "the  drink 
offering  thereof  shall  be  of  yayin,  the  fourth  part 
of  a  hin"  (Lev.  23.13). 

However,  then,  it  may  have  been  with  God's 
people,  yayin  was  not  forbidden  to  God  himself. 
He  demanded  daily  three  quarts  of  it,  and  on  the 
sabbath  (Num.  28.9-10)  six  quarts;  and  the  least 
amount  that  he  would  accept  at  a  special  sacrifice 
was  a  pint  and  a  half.  In  fact,  it  is  not  going  too 
far  to  say  that  without  yayin  was  no  formal  ap- 
proach to  Jehovah. 

Now  God's  offerings  must  be  of  the  best,  with- 
out blemish,  perfect.  Nothing  faulty,  let  alone 
evil,  could  be  offered  him  (except  the  broken  and 
contrite  heart).  Hence  God  must  have  approved 
of  yayin. 

Again;  God  demanded  yayin  in  his  worship 
daily:  in  consequence,  his  people  were  required 
to  make  and  have  it  on  hand  in  large  quantities. 
From  this  they  would  inevitably  come  to  look  on 
it  as  a  lawful  beverage ;  reasoning,  correctly,  that 
what  was  good  enough  for  God  was  good  enough 
for  them.  What  is  right  in  church  cannot  be 
wrong  out  of  church:  as  those  churches  reason 
that  today  exclude  yayin  from  the  Holy  Com- 
munion. If  it  is  right  in  church,  it  is  right  every- 
where: the  altar  sanctifies  the  gift.  Thus  God's 
people  would  have  been  led  to  drink  by  the  very 
example  of  God  himself.    It  is  a  certainty,  there- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  17 

fore,  that  yayin,  being  acceptable  to  God,  was  not 
forbidden  to  bis  people. 

It  is  true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there  was  a 
prohibition  of  yayin, — to  priests  on  service, ' '  And 
Jehovah  spake  nnto  Aaron,  saying,  Drink  no  wine 
nor  strong  drink,  thou,  nor  thy  sons  with  thee, 
when  ye  go  into  the  tent  of  meeting"  (Lev.  10.8-9). 
A  natural  reason  for  this  prohibition  is  that,  yayin 
being  intoxicating  in  excess,  there  was  danger  that 
a  priest  might  create  a  scandal  by  being  under 
its  influence  while  officiating.  If  God  had  meant, 
in  these  words,  to  forbid  the  priests  ever  to  drink, 
he  would  not  have  added,  ''when  ye  go  into  the 
tent  of  meeting".  How  terse  and  unmistakable 
would  have  been,  ''Drink  no  wine,  nor  strong 
drink,  thou,  nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  forever". 
That  is  the  way  the  law  would  read  today  in  a 
denomination  committed  to  total  abstinence.  It 
would  not  add,  "just  before  and  during  service". 

Another  thing.  In  that  Levitical  prohibition  the 
words,  "Jehovah  spake  unto  Aaron",  are  signifi- 
cant. They  are  not,  "Jehovah  spake  unto  the 
children  of  Israel".  Yet,  if  wine  had  been  forbid- 
den to  everyone,  no  special  prohibition  would  have 
been  needed  for  the  priests. 

But  the  Nazirite  was  required  to  abstain  from 
wine  and  "strong  drink"  altogether.  Let  us  give 
the  whole  of  this  part  of  his  obligation:  "And 
Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  When  either 
man  or  woman  shall  make  a  special  vow,  the  vow 
of  a  Nazirite,  to  separate  himself  unto  Jehovah, 
he  shall  separate  himself  from  yayin  and  strong 


18  THE  BIBLE 

drink;  he  shall  drink  no  vinegar  of  wine,  or  vin- 
egar of  strong  drink,  neither  shall  he  drink  any 
juice  of  grapes,  nor  eat  fresh  grapes  or  dried. 
All  the  days  of  his  separation  shall  he  eat  noth- 
ing that  is  made  of  the  grapevine,  from  the  ker- 
nels, even  to  the  husk"  (Num.  6.1-4). 

Why  the  grape  and  its  products  were  forbidden 
to  the  Nazirite  does  not  concern  us.  But  it  does 
concern  us  that  the  prohibition  of  yayin  is  asso- 
ciated with  these  other  indulgences  clearly  lawful, 
as  well  as,  in  addition,  with  hair-cutting:  "All 
the  days  of  his  vow  of  separation  there  shall  no 
razor  come  upon  his  head  ...  he  shall  let 
the  locks  of  the  hair  of  his  head  grow  long" 
(Num.  6.5).  Yayin  was  forbidden,  but  so  was  un- 
fermented  grape  juice.  And  the  release  from  the 
vow  carried  the  allowance  of  yayin,  as  well  as  of 
the  rest:  when  the  days  of  his  separation  are  ful- 
filled, ''after  that  the  Nazirite  may  drink  yayin" 
(Num.  6.20). 

Later,  the  Eechabites  were  total  abstainers. 
Their  story  is  in  Jer.  35.  The  reason  they  gave 
for  their  course  was  as  follows:  "We  will  drink 
no  yayin;  for  Jonadab,  the  son  of  Rechab,  our 
father  [father  stands  for  a  remote  ancestor],  com- 
manded us,  saying,  Ye  shall  drink  no  yayin,  neither 
ye,  nor  your  sons,  forever:  neither  shall  ye  build 
house,  nor  sow  seed,  nor  plant  vineyard,  nor  have 
any ;  but  all  your  days  ye  shall  dwell  in  tents ;  that 
ye  may  live  many  days  in  the  land  wherein  ye  so- 
journ" (verses  6-8). 

In  the  days  of  Jonadab,  "The  Eechabites,  of 
whom  he  was  doubtless  chief,  were  a  nomad  tribe 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  19 

.  .  .  and  zealous  worshippers  of  Jehovali.  In 
the  natural  course  of  events  they  would  have  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  Israelites,  once  their 
fellow-nomads,  and  settled  down  as  farmers  and 
townsmen.  Probably  the  process  was  beginning 
in  the  time  of  Jonadab;  but  that  chief  nipped  it 
in  the  bud,  and  induced  his  followers  to  make  their 
ancient  nomadic  habits  of  religious  obligation. 
He  had  no  leanings  to  asceticism,  and  his  ordi- 
nances were  not  intended  to  make  his  followers 
ascetics.  He  forbade  wine,  but  the  term  wine  is 
to  be  understood  strictly;  there  is  no  prohibition 
of  any  other  intoxicant.  His  motives  would  be 
two-fold.  First,  the  nomad  regards  agriculture 
and  city  life  as  meaner,  less  manly,  less  spiritual 
than  his  own.  Jonadab  wished  to  keep  his  clan 
to  the  higher  life.  Moreover,  when  the  Israelites 
surrendered  nomad  life  to  settle  on  the  farms  and 
in  towns,  they  corrupted  their  worship  of  Jehovah 
by  combining  it  with  the  superstitions  and  immoral 
rites  of  the  Canaanite  baals,  to  whom,  as  they 
thought,  they  owed  their  corn  and  wine  and  oil 
['for  she  did  not  know  that  I  gave  her  the  grain, 
and  the  new  wine,  and  the  oil  .  .  .  which  they 
used  for  Baal.' — Hos.  2.8].  Recently,  under  Ahab 
and  Jezebel,  the  worship  of  Baal  had  greatly  de- 
veloped. The  cultivation  of  corn  and  of  the  vine 
seemed  to  lead  directly  to  Baal-worship;  and  it 
would  seem  to  Jonadab  that  by  cutting  off  his 
people  from  any  connection  with  agriculture  he 
would  preserve  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  their 
ancient  worship  of  Jehovah". 
The  above  is  the  account  given  by  the  Eev. 


20  THE  BIBLE 

William  Henry  Bennett,  M.  A.,  Litt.  D.,  D.  D., 
Professor  of  Old  Testament  Exegesis  in  Hackney 
and  New  Colleges,  London;  and  it  is  the  account 
that  virtually  all  students  of  the  subject  concur 
in.  Therefore,  any  persons  who  today  feel  like 
becoming  Eechabites,  if  they  wish  to  be  genuine, 
must  vacate  their  houses  and  set  up  tents  to  live 
in;  and  they  must  not  sow  seed;  in  addition  to  ab- 
staining from  wine.  The  whole  body  of  farmers 
are  thus  debarred  by  their  occupation  from  the 
privilege  of  membership  in  this  great  order. 

Note,  too,  an  inference  from  the  words  of  Jere- 
miah, ''in  the  house  of  Jehovah", — ''And  I  set 
before  the  sons  of  the  house  of  the  Eechabites 
bowls  full  of  yayin,  and  cups;  and  I  said  unto 
them,  Drink  ye  yayin"  (Jer.  35.5).  E\ddently  a 
large  supply  (there  must  have  been  a  considerable 
number  of  Eechabites  to  be  served)  of  yayin  was 
kept  in  God's  house. 

Deuteronomy,  14.24-26,  is,  by  itself,  conclusive 
as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Old  Testament  toward 
both  wine  (yayin)  and  "strong  drink".  The  sub- 
ject is  the  eating  of  the  tithe  of  the  crops.  This 
must  be  done  "in  the  place  which  Jehovah  shall 
choose,  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell  there";  that  is, 
at  Jerusalem.  But  this  requirement  would  be  a 
hardship  to  those  dwelling  at  a  distance,  and  for 
these  it  is  commuted  in  the  following  fashion: 
"And,  if  the  way  be  too  long  for  thee,  so  that  thou 
art  not  able  to  carry  it  [the  tithe],  because  the 
place  is  too  far  from  thee  which  Jehovah  thy  God 
shall  choose,  to  set  his  name  there  .  .  .  then 
shalt  thou  turn  it  [the  fruits  of  the  field]  into 


THE  OLD  TESTAJVIENT  21 

money,  and  bind  up  the  money  in  thy  hand,  and 
shalt  go  unto  the  place  which  Jehovah  thy  God 
shall  choose :  and  thou  shalt  bestow  the  money  for 
whatsoever  thy  soul  desireth,  for  oxen  or  for 
sheep,  or  for  yayin,  or  for  strong  drink,  or  for 
whatsoever  thy  soul  asketh  of  thee ;  and  thou  shalt 
eat  there  before  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  thou  shalt 
rejoice,  thou  and  thy  household".  Mark,  it  was 
Jehovah  himself  that,  through  Moses,  told  his 
servants  to  buy  wine  (yayin)  and  "strong  drink" 
and  to  enjoy  themselves  with  them.  And  there 
is  much  more  of  like  tenor.  For  example,  Deut. 
28.39  threatens  as  a  punishment  of  disobedience 
to  God,  '^Thou  shalt  plant  vineyards  and  dress 
them,  but  thou  shalt  neither  drink  of  the  yayin,  nor 
gather  the  grapes". 

So  does  Micah  6.15 :  ' '  Thou  shalt  sow,  but  shalt 
not  reap ;  thou  shalt  tread  the  olives,  but  shalt  not 
anoint  thee  with  oil;  and  the  vintage,  but  shalt 
not  drink  the  yayin ' '. 

So  does  Zephaniah  1.13:  "And  their  wealth 
shall  become  a  spoil,  and  their  houses  a  desolation : 
yea,  they  shall  build  houses,  but  shall  not  inhabit 
them ;  and  they  shall  plant  vineyards,  but  shall  not 
drink  the  yayin  thereof". 

In  the  following  passage  Isaiah  makes  the  want 
of  wine,  if  not  of  "strong  drink"  also,  a  token  of 
"the  coming  world  catastrophe",  or  as  he  called  it 
"the  curse";  "Therefore  hath  the  curse  devoured 
the  earth,  .  .  .  therefore  the  inhabitants  of 
the  earth  are  burned,  and  few  men  left.  The  new 
wine  mourneth,  the  vine  languisheth,  all  the 
merryhearted   do    sigh.     The   mirth   of   tabrets 


22  THE  BIBLE 

ceaseth,  the  noise  of  them  that  rejoice  endeth,  the 
joy  of  the  harp  ceaseth.  They  shall  not  drink 
yayin  with  a  song  [because  there  will  be  none  to 
drink] ;  strong  drink  shall  be  bitter  to  them  that 
drink  it.  .  .  .  There  is  a  crying  in  the  streets 
because  of  the  yayin ;  all  joy  is  darkened,  the  mirth 
of  the  land  is  gone.  In  the  city  is  left  desolation, 
and  the  gate  is  smitten  with  destruction"  (Is.  24.6- 
12). 

Moses,  speaking  of  the  miraculous  way  in  which 
Jehovah  had  provided  for  his  people  in  the  wilder- 
ness, with  water  from  the  rock  and  manna  from 
heaven,  says,  ''Ye  have  not  eaten  bread,  neither 
have  ye  drunk  yayin  or  strong  drink"  (Deut. 
29.6) ;  as  though  their  usual  and  natural  beverages 
would  have  been  wine  and  ' '  strong  drink",  as  their 
natural  food  would  have  been  bread. 

Hannah  took  the  little  Samuel  to  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  to  dedicate  him  to  the  service  of  Jehovah 
there ;  and  with  him  she  brought  ' '  three  bullocks, 
one  ephah  of  meal,  and  a  bottle  of  yayin"  (1  Sam. 
1.24).  In  the  same  way  yayin  is  associated  with 
foods  and  other  necessaries  dozens  of  times,  with- 
out a  hint  that,  while  they  were  allowed,  it  was 
banned.  Thus  Samuel  tells  Saul,  "Thou  shalt 
come  to  the  oak  of  Tabor ;  and  there  shall  meet  thee 
there  three  men  going  up  to  God  to  Beth-el,  one 
carrying  three  kids,  and  another  carrying  three 
loaves  of  bread,  and  another  carrying  a  bottle  of 
yayin"  (1  Sam.  10.3).  ^  "And  Jesse  took  an  ass 
laden  with  bread,  and  a  bottle  of  yayin,  and  a  kid, 
and  sent  them  by  David  his  son  unto  Saul"  (1  Sam. 
16.20).    "When  David  was  a  little  past  the  top  of 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  23 

the  ascent,  behold,  Ziba  .  .  .  met  him,  with 
a  couple  of  asses  saddled,  and  upon  them  two 
hundred  loaves  of  bread,  and  a  hundred  clusters 
of  raisins,  and  a  hundred  of  summer  fruits,  and 
a  bottle  of  yayin.  .  .  .  And  Ziba  said.  The 
asses  are  for  the  king's  household  to  ride  on;  and 
the  bread  and  summer  fruit  for  the  young  men  to 
eat;  and  the  yayin,  that  such  as  are  faint  in  the 
wilderness  may  drink"  (2  Sam.  16.1-2).  Accord- 
ing to  1  Ch.  9.27-29,  the  four  chief  porters  "lodged 
round  about  the  house  of  God",  because  they  were 
responsible  for  the  furniture  and  all  the  vessels 
of  the  sanctuary  and  the  fine  flour  and  the  yayin 
and  the  oil  and  the  frankincense  and  the  spices. 
Those  who  helped  to  make  David  king  "brought 
bread  on  asses,  and  on  camels,  and  on  mules,  and 
on  oxen,  victuals  of  meal,  cakes  of  figs,  and  clusters 
of  raisins,  and  yayin,  and  oil,  and  oxen,  and  sheep 
in  abundance:  for  there  was  joy  in  Israel"  (1  Ch. 
12.40).  Solomon  promised  to  give  the  servants  of 
Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  the  hewers  that  cut  timber, 
"twenty  thousand  measures  of  beaten  wheat,  and 
twenty  thousand  measures  of  barley,  and  twenty 
thousand  baths  of  yayin  [180,000  gallons],  and 
twenty  thousand  baths  of  oil"  (2  Ch.  2.10).  "And 
Eehoboam  fortified  the  strongholds,  and  put  .  .  . 
in  them  .  .  .  stores  of  victuals,  and  oil  and 
yayin"  (2  Ch.  11.11).  Pious  Nehemiah  prays  that 
God  may  remember  him  for  good  because,  with 
all  else  that  he  had  done  for  his  brethren,  he  had 
contributed  daily  to  their  support,  "one  ox  and 
six  choice  sheep ;  also  fowls    .     .     .     ;  and  once  in 


24  THE  BIBLE 

ten  days  store  of  all  sorts  of  yayin"  (Neh.  5.18). 
Proverbs  declares: 

He  that  loveth  pleasure  shall  be  a  poor  man: 
He  that  loveth  yayin  and  oil  shall  not  be  rich 
(21.17). 

Now  pleasure  and  oil  have  their  place  in  life: 
it  follows,  in  this  passage,  that  wine  has,  too. 

The  Preacher  enjoins,  **Go  thy  way,  eat  thy 
bread  with  joy,  and  drink  thy  yayin  with  a  merry 
heart"  (Ecc.  9.7);  also,  ''A  feast  is  made  for 
laughter,  and  yayin  maketh  glad  the  life;  and 
money  answereth  all  things"  (Ecc.  10.19). 

In  the  following  stanza  from  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon (5.1),  wine  is  in  good  company: 

I  am  come  into  my  garden,  my  sister,  my  bride : 
I  have  gathered  my  myrrh  with  my  spice ; 
I  have  eaten  my  honeycomb  with  my  honey  j 
I  have  drunk  my  yayin  with  my  milk. 
Eat,  0  friends; 
Drink,  yea,  drink  abundantly,  0  beloved. 

Other  passages  in  the  Song  of  Songs  show  that 
yayin  was  held  in  very  high  honor.  Thus  the 
maiden  exalts  her  love  by  this  figure: 

For  thy  love  is  better  than  yayin  (1.2). 

But,  if  yayin  was  an  evil  and  injurious  thing, 
this  would  be  an  absurd  anti-climax;  like  saying 
today,  '*!  would  rather  have  your  love  than  wood- 
alcohol". 

So,  again,  two  verses  later: 

.We  will  make  mention  of  thy  love  more  than 
of  yayin. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  25 

This  comparison  appealed  to  the  poet  as  spe- 
cially felicitous  and  strong  j  for  in  4.10  he  comes 
back  to  it: 

How  much  better  is  thy  love  than  yayin ! 

Isaiah,  showing  how  even  good  things  can  be 
used  amiss,  includes  yayin  among  them:  "The 
harp  and  the  lute,  the  tabret  and  the  pipe,  and 
yayin,  are  in  their  feasts ;  but  they  regard  not  the 
work  of  Jehovah"  (Is.  5.12).  He  reproves  the 
nation  because,  when  God  called  to  repentance, 
''Behold,  joy  and  gladness,  slaying  oxen  and  kill- 
ing sheep,  eating  flesh  and  drinking  yayin"  (Is. 
22.13).  And  Jehovah  thus  announces  his  great 
call  of  free  mercy,  ''Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth, 
come  ye  to  the  waters,  and  he  that  hath  no  money ; 
come  ye,  buy  and  eat;  yea,  come,  buy  yayin  and 
milk  without  money  and  without  price"  (Is.  55.1). 
It  is  God  himself  that  urges  his  people  to  come 
and  drink  wine  and  milk  "without  money  and 
without  price".  It  is  true  that  this  is  a  figure 
of  speech.  But  in  figures  of  speech  there  is  a 
certain  harmony  with  the  thing  figured.  Would  a 
Salvation  Army  preacher  exhort  his  audience  of 
derelicts  to  come  and  imbibe  freely  "the  gin  of 
salvation"? 

Gedaliah  enjoined  the  remnant  left  behind  in 
the  land  of  Judah  by  the  Babylonian  conquerors 
to  go  calmly  about  their  customary  business, — 
"Gather  ye  yayin  [used  in  an  anticipative  sense] 
and  summer  fruits  and  oil"  (Jer.  40.10). 

In  the  hour  of  Zion's  affliction  the  starving 
children  "say  to  their  mothers,  Where  is  grain 


26  THE  BIBLE 

and  yayin?"  (Lam.  2.12).  It  is  noteworthy  in  this 
passage  that  even  young  children  were  accustomed 
to  wine. 

Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  handiwork  of  Tyre  as  con- 
sisting ''of  all  kinds  of  riches,  with  the  yayin  of 
Helbon,  and  white  wool"  (Ezek.  27.18). 

Daniel,  while  mourning,  ' '  ate  no  pleasant  bread, 
neither  came  flesh  nor  yayin  into  my  mouth, 
neither  did  I  anoint  myself  at  all"  (Dan.  10.3). 

Hosea  entreats  Israel  to  return  to  Jehovah;  for 
''they  that  dwell  under  his  shadow  shall  return; 
they  shall  revive  as  the  grain,  and  blossom  as  the 
vine:  the  scent  thereof  shall  be  as  the  yayin  of 
Lebanon"  (Hos.  14.7).  God  thus  pronounced  the 
smell  of  this  alcoholic  beverage  "very  good". 

Amos  associates  fine  houses,  vineyards,  and 
yayin  as  blessings  that  God  will  strip  his  people 
of  for  their  sin  (Amos  5.11).  But  in  the  final 
restoration,  he  foretells,  "My  people  . 
shall  build  the  waste  cities,  and  inhabit  them ;  and 
they  shall  plant  vineyards,  and  drink  the  yayin 
thereof ;  they  shall  also  make  gardens,  and  eat  the 
fruit  of  them"  (Amos  9.14). 

Haggai  asked  the  priests  this  question,  "If  one 
bear  holy  flesh  in  the  skirt  of  his  garment,  and 
with  his  skirt  do  touch  bread,  or  pottage,  or  yayin, 
or  oil,  or  any  food,  shall  it  become  holy  (Hag. 
2.12)  r'  Haggai  here  includes  wine  among  the 
foods.  In  fact,  wherever  wine  is  mentioned  in 
such  associations,  it  is  evidently  regarded  as 
equally  lawful  with  the  rest. 

Just  a  few  more  miscellaneous  references.  Job, 
that  "perfect  and  upright  man,  that  feared  God 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  27 

and  turned  away  from  eviP^  seems  to  have 
brought  up  his  family  to  drink  yayin :  * '  And  it  fell 
on  a  day  when  his  sons  and  his  daughters  were 
eating,  and  drinking  yayin,  in  their  eldest 
brother's  house"  (Job  1.13).  Notice,  it  was  not  a 
black  sheep  of  the  family,  but  all  his  sons  and 
daughters  that  were  making  merry  over  their  wine. 
Job  must  have  approved  it,  and  indeed  have  set 
the  example. 

In  recounting  Jehovah's  care  over  all  his  works 
the  poet  who  composed  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
of  all  the  psalms.  No.  104,  thus  sings : 

He  bringeth  forth  grass  for  the  cattle, 
And  green  herb  for  the  service  of  men; 
That  he  may  bring  forth  food  out  of  the  earth, 
And  yayin  that  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  man. 
And  oil  to  make  him  a  cheerful  countenance, 
And  bread  to  strengthen  man's  heart. 

— (Prayer  Book  Version.) 

Yayin,  fermented  wine,  is  here  in  good  com- 
pany; God  is  its  maker  and  giver. 

And  here  is  the  feast  that  Wisdom  (Pro.  9.2,5) 
has  prepared  and  invites  us  to : 

She  hath  killed  her  beasts ;  she  hath  mingled  her 
yayin; 

tF  TT  tF  gp  ^  ^  4?* 

Come,  eat  ye  of  my  bread, 

And  drink  of  the  yayin  which  I  have  mingled. 

It  is  true  that  Chapter  4,  Verse  17,  speaks  of 
the  "bread  of  wickedness"  and  ''the  yayin  of 
violence".    But  there  it  is  ''the  wicked'*  who  so 


28  THE  BIBLE 

pervert  both  bread  and  wine.  Now,  if  the  wicked 
can  use  them  for  evil,  Wisdom  can  for  good. 

Enough  passages  have  been  cited  to  oblige  us 
to  believe  that  yayin,  fully  fermented  wine,  having 
a  considerable  alcoholic  content,  and  causing  intox- 
ication if  drunk  too  freely,  is  looked  on  by  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  as  a  good  gift  of  God.  And 
this  is  true  also  of  the  alcoholic  beverage,  or  bev- 
erages, known  as  ''strong  drink".  Wine  and 
"strong  drink"  had  then  the  seal  of  God's  favor 
on  them,  however  it  be  now. 

The  contention  that  the  Old  Testament  knows 
two  sorts  of  wine,  one,  yayin,  alcoholic,  and  con- 
demned, and  the  other,  tirosh,  unfermented  grape 
juice,  and  approved,  cannot,  therefore,  be  main- 
tained. And  that,  without  regard  to  the  meaning 
of  tirosh.  Granted  that  tirosh  is  always  the  fresh 
juice  of  the  grape  (we  shall  come  to  that  pres- 
ently), and  that  therefore  the  Old  Testament 
knows  two  contrasting  sorts  of  wine,  even  so  it 
is  not  true  that  one  is  always  condemned.  It  is 
condemned  only  at  times,  and  is  far  oftener 
praised.  Where  tirosh  is  praised  once,  yayin  is 
praised  twice  or  thrice. 

Of  the  three  possible  views,  then,  as  to  the 
attitude  of  the  Old  Testament  to  wine,  two  have 
been  disposed  of.  The  first  is,  that  the  sacred 
writers  contradict  each  other.  The  second  is,  that 
they  had  in  view  two  kinds  of  wine,  an  evil  and 
a  good.  There  is  left  only  the  third  view, — that 
the  distinction  made  by  them  is  between,  not  a 
good  and  an  evil  wine,  but  between  a  good  and  an 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  29 

evil  use  of  wine.    Let  us  see  whether  or  not  this 
is  so. 

Though  wine  and  "strong  drink"  are  named 
nearly  two  hundred  times  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  passages  commonly  cited  and  relied  on  to  prove 
that  they  are  condemned  are  only  half  a  dozen 
or  so.    Let  us  examine  them. 

Yayin  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  a  brawler ; 
And  whosoever  erreth  thereby  is  not  wise. 

—Pro.  20.1. 

This  passage,  standing  alone,  would  outlaw  wine 
and  ''strong  drink",  as  making  mockers  and 
brawlers.  But ' '  wine  is  a  mocker ' '  must  be  under- 
stood in  connection  with  the  other  Bible  teachings 
as  to  wine,  not  as  if  it  stood  alone.  ''No  one  in- 
terprets the  statement,  'Knowledge  puffeth  up'  (1 
Cor.  8.1),  as  the  condemnation  of  a  certain  kind 
of  knowledge ;  or  the  words,  '  The  tongue  is  a  fire ' 
(James  3.6)  as  suggesting  a  distinction  of  tongues 
as  to  substance  or  structure"  (Schaff-Hertzog 
Encyclopedia,  3d  Edition,  under  "Wine"). 
Moreover,  this  very  sage,  only  a  few  chapters 
earlier  (9.1-6),  had  compared  Wisdom  to  this 
same  yayin :  ' '  Come,  .  .  .  drinl^  of  the 
yayin  which  I  have  mingled".  Now  the 
examination  we  have  just  made  of  the  Old 
Testament  shows  that  wine  and  "strong  drink" 
were  universal  beverages  of  the  Hebrews;  but 
none  of  these  passages  indicate  that  this  people 
were  habitual  drunkards.  In  connection  with  na- 
tional and  other  festivities  it  may  be  that  they 
drank  more  than  was  good  for  them,  as  Christians 


30  THE  BIBLE 

are  apt  to  glnttonise  at  Christmas;  and  then,  in 
truth,  wine  was  a  mocker  and  "strong  drink"  a 
brawler;  just  as  at  Thanksgiving  and  Christmas 
turkey  proves  the  undoing  of  so  many  Americans. 
And  a  certain  class  drank  to  excess  all  the  time. 
But  the  bulk  of  the  nation,  as  a  rule,  was  sober; 
and  their  wine  and  "strong  drink"  was  neither 
mocker  nor  brawler.  In  fact,  even  when  Isaiah  is 
excoriating  his  people,  so  far  from  blaming  them 
for  drinking  at  all,  he  twits  them  because  their 
transgressions  had  reduced  them  to  such  poverty 
that  their  silver  was  debased  and  their  wine 
(sobe)  adulterated  by  their  merchants  with  water 
(Is.  1.22). 

That,  however,  the  bulk  of  the  people  were 
habitually  sober  is  self-evident;  for  a  nation  of 
drunkards  could  not  have  survived.  They  could 
not  now:  they  could  not  then:  they  never  could. 
Nature  would  eliminate  them.  The  individual  who 
is  a  mocker  and  brawler  through  intemperance 
scores  a  triumph  in  merely  keeping  alive  and  out 
of  jail.  Even  this  is  possible  only  because  there 
is  a  healthy,  sober  society  about  him  that  he  can 
sponge  on  and  take  advantage  of.  But  a  society 
of  such  people  would  be  a  miracle  beyond  the  Al- 
mighty. If  a  sober  nation  did  not  put  an  end 
to  them,  nature  would. 

Yet  it  was  a  true  generalization  that  wine  in 
excess  was  a  mocker,  and  "strong  drink"  in  excess 
a  brawler.  If  these  strong  words  were  meant  to 
score  the  sin  of  intemperance,  they  appealed  to 
the  good  sense  of  their  readers.  Every  one  would 
exclaim,  "Yes,  that  is  so".    Still,  though  obvious 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  31 

when  attention  was  called  to  it,  it  was  a  lesson 
that  people  needed  to  be  reminded  of.  Most  prac- 
tical truth  is  of  this  sort.  Men  know  what  is 
right,  but  they  lose  sight  of  it.  But  the  declaration 
that  wine  and  "strong  drink"  always,  or  even  gen- 
erally, made  mockers  and  brawlers  could  not  have 
been  dismissed  in  two  lines.  In  the  few  words 
that  the  sage  thought  sufficient  for  his  purpose,  he 
was  plainly  emphasizing  a  truth  that  needed  no 
demonstration:  his  readers  understood  it  as  well 
as  he. 

In  the  second  line  the  Eevised  Versions  give 
' '  reel "  as  an  alternative  for  ' '  err ' '.  Dr.  Crawford 
H.  Toy,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Harvard,  and 
author  of  the  volume  on  Proverbs,  in  the  Interna- 
tional Critical  Commentary,  prefers  this  render- 
ing. ' '  Eeel ' '  would  be  decisive  for  the '  *  in  excess ' ' 
idea: 

Yayin  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  a  brawler; 
And  whosoever  reels  thereby  is  not  wise. 

This  is  the  general,  though  not  the  particular, 
significance  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate 
versions : 

Everyone  who  is  foolish  is  entangled  in  such 
things. — Septuagint. 

Whoever  is  led  astray  by  these  things  will  not 
be  wise. — ^^^ulgate. 

The  fact  that  there  is  a  question  between  "err" 
and  "reel"  reduces  such  presumption  as  the 
rigorist  interpretation  of  the  passage  might 
otherwise  have :  it  rests  on  an  uncertainty. 


32  THE  BIBLE 

The  purport  of  this  Proverb,  according  to  Prof. 
Toy,  is  ''the  folly  of  drinking  to  excess".  This 
view  of  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  the 
Scriptures,  with  the  facts,  and  with  the  unbroken 
consensus  of  scholarship,  as  fat  as  scholarship 
has  accepted  this  particular  Hebrew  reading. 
That  the  sacred  writer  did  not  qualify  his  words 
is  no  more  to  be  wondered  at  than  that  Jesus  did 
not  qualify  his  words,  "All  that  came  before  me 
are  thieves  and  robbers"  (Jo.  10.8).  Scripture 
often  sets  forth  one  aspect  of  a  truth  as  if  it  were 
all,  leaving  it  to  common  sense  to  make  the  neces- 
sary qualifications.  Modern  writing  has  more  re- 
gard for  formal  accuracy ;  and  this  difference  must 
be  kept  in  mind  in  reading  the  Bible. 

Light  is  thrown  on  this  passage  by  another  in 
the  same  book,  three  chapters  later,  as  follows : 

Be  not  among  yayin-bibbers, 
Among  gluttonous  eaters  of  flesh : 
For  the  drunkard  and  the  glutton  shall  come  to 
poverty.  —Pro.  23.20-21. 

Who  hath  woe?  who  hath  sorrow?  who  hath  con- 
tentions ? 

Who  hath  complaining?  who  hath  wounds  with' 
out  cause? 

Who  hath  redness  of  eyes? 

They  that  tarry  long  at  the  yayin; 
They  that  go  to  seek  out  mixed  wine. 

Look  not  upon  the  yayin  when  it  is  red, 
When  it  sparkleth  in  the  cup, 
When  it  goeth  down  smoothly: 
At  the  last  it  biteth  like  a  serpent, 
And  stingeth  like  an  adder. 

—Pro.  23.29-32. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  33 

Wine-bibbers  are  topers. 

No  extended  discussion  of  these  passages  is 
needed.  Drunkards  and  gluttons  are  condemned; 
but  moderate  drinking  no  more  tban  moderate  eat- 
ing. Accordingly  this  Old  Testament  Benjamin 
Franklin,  to  his  own  question,  **Who  hath  red- 
ness of  eyes"  etc.,  answers, 

They  that  tarry  long  at  the  wine ; 
They  that  go  to  seek  out  mixed  wine. 

The  persons  whose  example  the  sage  is  here 
warning  against  are  those  having  ''wounds  with- 
out cause"  and  "redness  of  eyes"  from  drink; 
that  is,  intemperate  persons. 

Likewise,  too,  the  injunction, 

Look  not  thou  upon  the  wine  when  it  is  red. 
When  it  sparkleth  in  the  cup, 

is  absolute  enough;  but  its  context  shows  that  it 
refers  only  to  immoderate  indulgence.  It  has  in 
view  the  toper  who,  as  soon  as  he  begins  to  come 
to  from  his  spree  asks, 

When  shall  I  awake  [recover  strength]  from  my 

wine? 
I  will  seek  it  yet  again. 

— ^Verse  35,  after  Prof.  Toy. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  oracle  of  king  Lemuel, 
"which  his  mother  taught  him": 

It  is  not  for  kings,  0  Lemuel,  it  is  not  for  kings 

to  drink  wine ; 
Nor  for  princes  to  say,  Where  is  strong  drink? 
Lest  they  drink,  and  forget  the  law. 
And  pervert  the  justice  due  to  any  that  is  afflicted. 


34  THE  BIBLE 

Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish, 
And  wine  unto  the  bitter  in  soul: 
Let  him  drink,  and  forget  his  poverty. 
And  remember  his  misery  no  more. 

—Pro.  31.4-7. 

The  text  of  the  verse,  "It  is  not  for  kings"  etc., 
is  doubtful.  One  Greek  reading  is,  "Do  every- 
thing prudently,  drink  wine  prudently".  How- 
ever, on  the  principle  that  the  harder  reading  is 
the  more  likely,  we  will  take  this  whole  teaching 
as  it  stands.  Does  it,  then,  forbid  people  to  drink? 
We  are  obliged  to  say  it  does  not.  If  it  forbids 
drink  to  one  class,  it  recommends  it  to  another. 
If  kings  are  not  to  drink,  those  in  bodily  or  mental 
distress  may  drink.  And  the  latter  outnumber  the 
former  immeasurably.  How  many  kings  are 
there  in  the  world?  A  score  or  two.  How  many 
poor  souls  "in  poverty"  and  in  anguish  of  spirit? 
Alas,  millions  and  millions.  Hundreds  of  thou- 
sands in  a  London  alone  never  know  aught  but 
"la  misere".  These  are  the  very  ones  that  today 
are  urged  to  let  drink  alone.  And  it  almost  shocks 
us  to  read  this  ancient  wisdom  of  king  Lemuel, 
which  his  mother  taught  him;  which  was  deemed 
worthy  of  a  place  in  the  inspired  word  of  God : 

Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish. 

And  wine  unto  the  bitter  in  soul: 

Let  him  drink,  and  forget  his  poverty, 

And  remember  his  misery  no  more. 

We  must  insist,  however,  that  the  word  "kings", 
in  fairness,  be  construed  to  apply,  not  merely  to 
those  called  kings,  but  also,  and  even  more,  to  all 
who  are  charged  with  great  responsibilities  over 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  35 

their  fellows.  Yet,  in  turn,  we  must  concede  that, 
if  the  rigorist,  literal,  grammatical  canon  be  in- 
voked for  one  purpose,  it  can  be  for  others.  It 
is  a  poor  rule  that  does  not  work  both  ways. 

Great  men  and  sufferers,  however,  do  not  make 
up  society.  There  remains  the  great  intermediate 
class,  which  is  much  larger  than  both  together. 
May  they  drink?  It  would  seem  so;  though  the 
oracle  here  is  dumb.  If  king  Lemuel  had  meant 
to  exclude  them,  he  would  have  said  so.  His  very 
silence  gives  consent. 

Nor,  even  for  the  captains  of  society,  may  we 
push  the  meaning  of  the  sage  to  extremes.  This 
oracle  may  intend  no  more  than  that,  like  priests 
on  duty,  they  had  better  practise  abstinence  when 
discharging  their  responsibilities,  and  that  at  all 
times  they  had  better  err  on  the  side  of  restraint 
than  indulgence.  Let  such  men  be  very,  very  care- 
ful. 

There  remain  only  two  short  sayings  of  Hab- 
bakuk,  both  in  the  second  chapter.  A'^erse  5  starts 
out,  ''Yea,  moreover,  wine  is  treacherous".  The 
obvious  moral  is,  ''Be  careful".  Verse  15  de- 
clares: "Woe  unto  him  that  giveth  his  neighbor 
drink,  to  thee  that  addest  thy  venom,  and  makest 
him  drunken  also,  that  thou  mayest  look  on  their 
nakedness".  This  means  just  what  it  says,  Do 
not  make  your  neighbor  drunk.  Here  is  the  ren- 
dering of  this  passage  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  William 
Hayes  Ward,  editor  of  Habbakuk,  in  the  Interna- 
tional Critical  Commentary  (late  editor  also  of 
The  Independent) : 


36  THE  BIBLE 

Woe  to  him  that  maketh  his  neighbor  drunk  from 
the  cup  of  thy  wrath, 

Even  making  him  drunken,  so  as  to  look  on  naked- 
ness. 

Thus  the  teachings  concerning  yayin  and 
"strong  drink"  gathered  from  the  rest  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  not  impaired  by  the  five  or  six 
just  examined.  These  present  only  the  bad  side ; 
for  the  reason  that  their  sole  purpose  is  to  warn 
against  the  danger  in  drink.  All  the  teachings 
of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  the  use  of  wine  and 
''strong  drink",  then,  harmonize.  Their  common 
burden  is:  Wine  and  "strong  drink"  are  good 
gifts  of  God,  not  to  be  decried,  not  to  be  misused, 
but  to  be  enjoyed  (if  one  will)  as  a  portion  from 
him  who  giveth  to  all  their  meat  in  due  season. 
"Yayin  is  represented  as  in  daily  use,  whether  at 
the  ordinary  family  meal  and  the  more  ambitious 
banquet  or  at  the  sacrificial  feast  and  in  the  ritual 
of  the  sanctuary."  It  was  real  wine,  of  different 
ages,  of  different  vintage,  "the  wine  of  Lebanon", 
"the  wine  of  Helbon";  but  all  alike  alcoholic. 
Later  Jewish  legislation  provided  that  the  new 
wine  should  not  be  admissible  for  the  drink-offer- 
ing, till  it  had  stood  forty  days  in  the  fermenting 
vat. 

n 

The  case  of  fermented  wine  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  settled  by  the  usage  of  the  word  yayin, 
which  occurs  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  times. 
The  repeated  and  positive  approval  of  this  bev- 
erage by  Jehovah,  alike  for  his  own  use  and  for 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  37 

the  use  of  his  people,  makes  the  indiscriminate 
censure  of  it  (and  of  like  beverages  no  more 
dangerous  than  wine)  a  censure  of  God  himself. 
All  that  is  claimed  for  the  word  tirosh,  namely, 
that  it  always  stands  for  unfermented  grape-juice 
and  is  always  approved,  might  be  granted  without 
affecting  the  attitude  of  these  Scriptures  toward 
yayin.  To  approve  tea  is  not  to  condemn  coffee.  If 
tirosh  is  different  from  yayin,  how  can  the  judg- 
ment passed  on  one  beverage  affect  some  other 
beverage,  except,  it  may  be,  in  some  point  common 
to  both? 

Yet  the  standing  of  tirosh  in  the  Old  Testament 
will  now  be  investigated,  because  of  the  importance 
that  some  have  attached  to  this  question.  The 
discussion  of  it  may  have  interest,  if  not  value. 
What,  indeed,  if  it  should  even  have  value? 

The  word  tirosh  is  in  the  Old  Testament  thirty- 
eight  times. 

Isaiah  has  it  in  chapter  65,  verse  8 :  "Thus  saith 
Jehovah,  As  the  tirosh  is  found  in  the  cluster, 
and  one  saith.  Destroy  it  not,  for  a  blessing  is  in 
it",  etc.  According  to  this,  tirosh  might  be  the 
grape  or  the  natural  unaltered  juice,  whether  in 
or  out  of  the  grape. 

Micah,  6.15,  says,  "Thou  shalt  tread  .  .  . 
the  tirosh,  but  shalt  not  drink  the  yayin".  This 
looks  as  if  tirosh  were  the  grapes :  how  could  juice 
be  trodden?  Yet  Isaiah  speaks  of  treading  yayin, 
which  every  one  admits  to  be  the  juice,  and  old 
fermented  juice  at  that:  "No  treader  shall  tread 
out  yayin  in  the  presses"  (Is.  16.10).  "Tread 
out"  here  is  the  same  word  rendered  "tread"  in 


38  THE  BIBLE 

Micah  6.15:  the  ''out"  ought  to  be  left  out: 
Isaiah's  expression  is  "tread  yayin  in  the 
presses". 

So  far,  then,  tirosh  is  grape  juice,  whether  in 
the  grape,  just  out  of  the  grape,  or  some  time  out 
of  the  grape. 

Joel  2.24,  "The  floors  shall  be  full  of  wheat, 
and  the  vats  shall  overflow  with  tirosh  and  oil", 
is  a  harvest  scene,  and  the  tirosh  is  what  our 
English  versions  term  "new  wine",  the  juice  re- 
cently, if  not  just,  expressed,  the  juice  as  long  as 
it  was  in  the  vats. 

So  it  is  in  Pro.  3.10: 

So  shall  thy  barns  be  filled  with  plenty, 
And  thy  vats  shall  overflow  with  tirosh. 

The  same  thing  is  inferable  from  Joel  1.10: 
"The  grain  is  destroyed,  the  tirosh  is  dried  up, 
the  oil  languisheth". 

That  tirosh  is  new,  as  opposed  to  old,  wine  is 
indicated  by  Deut.  18.4,  "The  first  fruits  of  thy 
grain,  of  thy  tirosh,  and  of  thine  oil,  and  the  first 
of  the  fleece  of  thy  sheep,  shalt  thou  give  him" 
[the  priest]  :  tirosh  belongs  with  the  first-fruits. 

So  tirosh  comes  under  the  law  of  tithes  (pos- 
sibly tithes  and  first-fruits  were  the  same) : 
"Thou  shalt  surely  tithe  all  the  increase  of  thy 
seed,  that  which  cometh  forth  from  the  field,  year 
by  year.  And  thou  shalt  eat  .  .  .  the  tithe 
of  thy  grain,  of  thy  tirosh,  and  of  thine  oil,  and 
the  firstlings  of  thy  herd"  (Deut.  14.22-23). 

Tirosh  is  also  in  habitual  association  with  grain 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  39 

(or  corn)  and  with  oil.    **God  give  thee     . 
plenty  of  grain  and  tirosh"  (Gen.  27.28)  and  **A 
nation  that     .     .     .     shall  not  leave  thee  grain, 
tirosh,  or  oil"  (Deut.  28.51)  are  two  instances  of 
many. 

These  products  of  the  field,  likewise,  are  fresh, 
as  Hosea  indicates  by  the  expression  "in  the  time 
thereof",  in  2.9:  "Therefore  will  I  take  back  my 
grain  in  the  time  thereof,  and  my  tirosh  in  the 
season  thereof,  and  will  pluck  away  my  wool  and 
my  flax".  Note  the  raw  products  "wool  and 
flax",  not  garments  of  wool,  not  linen.  As  tirosh 
belongs  with  grain,  so  does  yayin  with  flour: 
"Thou  shalt  offer  ...  a  tenth  part  of  an 
ephah  of  fine  flour  .  .  .  and  the  fourth  part 
of  a  hin  of  yayin"  (Ex.  29.38,40).  It  is  always 
bread  and  yayin,  grain  and  tirosh:  "Melchizedek 
.  brought  forth  bread  and  yayin"  (Gen. 
14.18 ) .  Grain  ceases  to  be  grain  when ' '  made  up ' ', 
and  becomes  flour  or  bread.  Flax  ceases  to  be 
flax,  when  "made  up",  and  becomes  linen.  Tirosh 
ceases  to  be  tirosh,  when  "made  up",  and  becomes 
yayin.  To  use  a  modern  term,  yayin  is  the  man- 
ufactured article,  the  finished  product;  tirosh  is 
the  article  as  raw  material  or  in  process. 

The  passages  so  far  indicate  that  tirosh  is  the 
juice  of  the  grape  till  it  becomes  yayin,  from  its 
expression  from  the  fruit  till  it  is  recognized  as 
a  finished  product.  But,  if  this  is  so,  tirosh  must 
include  all  the  stages  of  fermentation,  with  their 
rackings,  till  the  wine  is  recognized  as  made,  fin- 
ished. In  that  hot  country  bubbles  begin  to  rise 
in  the  fresh  juice  within  an  hour,  and  next  day 


40  THE  BIBLE 

fermentation  is  in  full  swing,  with  a  considerable 
and  growing  alcoholic  content.  It  may  have  been 
forty  or  fifty  days  before  the  fermentation  was 
considered  complete  (it  continued,  in  fact,  very 
much  longer,  but  in  the  more  delicate  and  refined 
changes  of  wine),  and  during  these  weeks  the 
article  was  tirosh.  After  the  first  few  days  men 
could  intoxicate  themselves  on  it  about  as  easily 
as  they  ever  could.  And  yet  it  was  tirosh,  not 
yayin. 

There  must,  too,  have  been  a  short  time  when 
the  product  could  be  termed  indifferently  either 
tirosh  or  yayin,  that  is,  when  it  could  be  consid- 
ered old  tirosh  or  new  yayin. 

But  are  there  any  other  passages  or  facts  in 
point? 

There  is  the  fact  that,  though  tirosh  was  never 
offered  in  the  sacrifice,  it  was  subject  to  the  law 
of  tithes:  ''Thou  shalt  eat  .  .  .  the  tithe 
of  thy  grain,  and  of  thy  tirosh"  (Deut.  14.23). 
This  must  be  done  "before  Jehovah  thy  God,  in 
the  place  which  he  shall  choose"  (14.23) ;  that  is, 
at  Jerusalem.  They  must  carry  their  tithes 
thither,  if  it  was  not  too  far.  Now,  before  the 
wine-maker  could  determine  what  his  tithe  was, 
he  would  have  to  wait  till  all  his  grapes  were 
pressed.  Give  him  some  time  to  prepare  for  the 
journey  and  to  accomplish  it,  ten  to  fifty  miles,  or 
more ;  consider  the  constant  agitation  of  the  juice 
during  the  journey;  and  I  am  afraid  his  tirosh 
must  have  had  a  pretty  keen  bite.  The  later  view 
of  the  school  is  clear  from  their  ruling  that  tirosh 
is  tithable  from  the  moment  it  throws  up  scum. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  41 

Isaiah,  62.8-9,  by  itself  is  decisive:  "Jeliovah 
hath  sworn  .  .  .  foreigners  shall  not  drink 
thy  tirosh,  for  which  those  hast  labored ;  .  .  . 
they  that  have  gathered  it  shall  drink  it  in  the 
courts  of  my  sanctuary".  This  could  not  be  un- 
fermented  grape-juice. 

And,  lastly,  there  is  Hosea  4.11,  which  would 
be  ample,  even  if  it  were  all:  "Whoredom  and 
yayin  and  tirosh  take  away  the  understanding", — 
fornication  and  drunkenness.  Now  unfermented 
grape- juice  never  took  away  anybody's  under- 
standing. But  here  tirosh  does  just  what  yayin 
does.  Prof.  Harper,  in  the  International  Critical 
Commentary,  says  that  these  words  were  a 
proverb;  which,  for  our  inquiry,  gives  them  all 
the  more  significance, — the  intoxicating  power  of 
tirosh  was  a  proverb. 

Thus  all  the  praises  bestowed  on  tirosh  are  be- 
stowed on  a  drink  that,  in  one  of  its  stages,  could 
''take  away  the  understanding",  could  make 
drunk.  Tirosh,  too,  like  yayin,  had  to  be  guarded 
against. 

Unexpectedly,  then,  tirosh  confirms  the  conclu- 
sions drawn  from  yayin.  The  Old  Testament 
leaves  both  to  the  good  judgment  of  men.  Drink 
yayin,  tirosh,  and  ''strong  drink",  if  you  wish, 
but  stop  before  they  harm  you.  The  wrong  is  in 
the  hurt. 

In  later  Hebrew  the  word  yayin  is  extended  to 
include  both  the  freshly  expressed  grape- juice,  or 
must,  and  the  fermented  juice  of  various  other 
fruits,  such  as  the  apple-wine  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  Mischna.    The  word  tirosh  had  be- 


42  THE  BIBLE 

come  obsolete  by  the  Mischna,  and  yayin  may  be . 
used  for  it. 

Tirosh  and  Yayin. — The  distinction  between 
these  two  terms  is  strikingly  brought  out  in 
Deut.  14.23-26,  a  passage  already  cited  in  connec- 
tion with  each  word  separately.  This  passage 
prescribes  that  the  tithe  of  tirosh  and  other  first- 
fruits  shall  be  carried  by  the  farmer  to  Jerusalem 
and  consumed  there.  But,  if  on  account  of  the 
distance  this  would  be  a  hardship,  then  he  may 
sell  them  and  carry  the  money  to  Jerusalem,  there 
to  buy  and  eat  their  equivalents.  But  among  these 
equivalents  yayin  is  named  instead  of  tirosh. 
Why?  Probably  because  tirosh  was  not  a  staple 
commodity  of  trade,  and  yayin  was.  The  farmer 
could  not  be  sure  of  finding  fresh  wine,  tirosh,  to 
buy,  even  "in  the  season  thereof";  but  he  could 
be  sure  of  finding  yayin,  the  matured  wine,  at  all 
seasons.  And  Jehovah  evidently  regarded  the 
two  as  morally  equivalent,  tirosh  and  yayin. 

in 

Besides  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
which  wine  or  *' strong  drink"  is  named  directly, 
there  are  others  in  which  drink  is  spoken  of  under 
some  other  term ; — as,  for  example,  the  word  cup. 
These  passages,  too,  are  significant  for  our  pres- 
ent investigation.  One  must  suffice,  the  5th  verse 
of  the  23d  Psalm :  My  cup  runneth  over.  What 
was  this  cup  running  over  with?  The  ancient 
Versions  do  not  render  this  clause  as  the  modem 
do :  they  make  it  refer  to  the  quality,  not  the  quan- 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  43 

tity,  of  the  beverage.  The  Septuagint  translates 
it,  the  Clip  that  intoxicates ;  the  Vulgate,  the 
same, — calix  mens  inebrians,  my  inebriating  cup. 
The  International  Critical  Commentary  here 
agrees  with  the  Ancient  Versions,  rendering  it, 
My  cup  is  exhilarating;  that  is,  ''the  cup  given 
to  me  by  my  host,  the  wine  cup  of  welcome", — a 
cup  ''whose  wine  saturates,  drenches,  or  soaks  the 
one  who  drinks  it,  so  excellent  its  quality  and  so 
ample  its  quantity,  intoxicating;  so  St.  Augustine, 
explaining  inebrians,  'And  thy  cup  yielding  for- 
getfulness  of  former  vain  delights'  ".  ^'Inebrians, 
irrigans,  laetificans,  consolatione  plenus,  exube- 
rans,  redundans  excellentissimo  liquore"  is  the 
explanation  of  Genebradus. 

"This  cup",  then,  of  the  beautiful  23d  Psalm 
"runneth  over"  with  fermented  wine. 


CHAPTER   II 

OUTSIDE     AUTHORITIES 


The  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha. — After  the  Baby- 
lonian Captivity,  the  Hebrew  language,  in  which 
the  Old  Testament  was  written,  gradually  fell  into 
disuse,  until,  finally,  it  was  preserved  only  as  a 
learned  and  sacred  language.  It  was  superseded 
by  the  Aramaic,  an  allied  tongue;  and  this,  not 
Hebrew,  was  the  language  that  Jesus  spoke.  In 
time,  even  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  so  ill  under- 
stood in  Hebrew  that,  as  they  were  read  in  the 
synagogue  services,  they  were  translated,  or  para- 
phrased, into  the  vernacular,  verse  by  verse,  or 
section  by  section. 

But  there  was  a  great,  or  greater,  Jewry  grow- 
ing up  outside  the  Holy  Land,  "the  dispersion"; 
for  then,  when  the  Jews  had  a  country,  they  wan- 
dered and  settled  as  widely  as  today,  when  they 
have  none.  These  foreign  Jews,  among  the  "na- 
tions", were  as  little  familiar  with  Aramaic  as 
with  Hebrew.  They  spoke  the  language  of  their 
adopted  country,  and,  in  addition,  in  common  with 
the  educated  classes  everywhere,  Greek. 

It  became  a  necessity,  therefore,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures should  be  translated  into  Greek,  and  this 
was  done  by  learned  Jews  of  Alexandria; — first 
the  Law,  and  little  by  little  the  rest,  one  after  an- 
other, as  the  need  was  felt, — the  whole  task  ex- 

44 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  45 

tending  over  a  very  long  period.  This  Greek 
translation  is  known  as  the  Septuagint,  commonly 
abbreviated  LXX.  It  came  into  familiar  use,  like 
our  King  James  Version,  and  was  even  employed 
in  the  worship  of  the  Grecian  synagogues.  It  is 
this  version,  not  the  Hebrew,  that  is  quoted  from 
in  the  New  Testament. 

But  the  LXX.  contains  some  dozen  to  fifteen 
books  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  though 
many,  or  most,  of  these  are  from  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic  originals.  These  additional  books  are 
known  as  the  Apocrypha.  They  were  received  as 
canonical  Scripture  by  all  Christendom  till  the 
Eeformation;  and  since  the  Reformation  the  Lu- 
therans and  Episcopalians  accord  them  a  position 
just  inferior  to  the  Scriptures  proper.  Other 
Protestants  reject  them. 

The  Apocryphal  books  belong  in  the  interval  of 
several  centuries  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New.  They  are  universally  admitted  to  be  of 
great  value  for  the  light  they  throw  on  Jewish 
life  and  thought  in  this  interval. 

Throughout  the  Septuagint  the  various  Hebrew 
words  for  wine  are  almost  uniformly  rendered  by 
oinos,  the  ordinary  Greek  word  for  the  fermented 
beverage.  This  shows  that  in  the  judgment  of 
these  learned  Jews  of  Alexandria  virtually  all  the 
wines  of  the  Old  Testament,  whether  old  or  new, 
were  alcoholic.  There  is  no  mistaking  the  nature 
of  this  oinos:  read  the  following, — 

Wine  and  women  will  make  men  of  understand- 
ing to  fall  away. — Jesus  ben  Sirach,  19.2. 


46  THE  BIBLE 

Even  an  ancient  would  not  have  been  ungallant 
enoiigli  to  classify  women  with  unfermented  grape 
juice.  Besides,  what  man  of  understanding,  or 
without  understanding,  was  ever  seduced  to  his 
fall  by  unfermented  grape  juice? 

This  passage  exhibits  the  general  attitude  of  the 
Apocrypha  to  drink.  Wine  may  intoxicate; 
women,  ensnare.  Must  men  have  nothing  to  do 
with  women,  then?  No  more  are  they  obliged  to 
hold  aloof  from  wine.  They  must  be  careful  in 
their  relations  with  women:  they  must  be  careful 
in  their  use  of  wine.  In  both  directions,  discretion 
is  the  need. 

Wine  and  women  are  brought  together  again  in 
9.9  of  the  same  book: 

Sit  not  at  all  with  a  woman  that  hath  a  hus- 
band. 
And  revel  not  with  her  at  the  wine. 

Good  advice  for  any  man:  merry-making  with 
another's  man's  wife  is  risky. 

A  passage  in  this  same  Jesus  ben  Sirach,  31.25- 
30,  shows  that  this  wine  was  alcoholic,  and  that 
these  ancient  Jews, — and  the  presumption  is  their 
ancestors, — thought  it  a  lawful  indulgence;  to  be 
kept,  however,  under  control: 

Show  not  thyself  valiant  in  wine; 

For  wine  hath  destroyed  many. 

The  furnace  proveth  the  temper  of  steel  by 

dipping ; 
So  doth  wine  prove  hearts  in  the  quarreling  of 

the  proud. 
Wine  is  as  good  as  life  to  men. 
If  thou  drink  it  in  its  measure : 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  47 

What  life  is  there  to  a  man  that  is  without  wine?. 
And  it  hath  been  created  to  make  men  glad. 
Wine  drunk  in  season  and  to  satisfy 
Is  joy  of  heart,  and  gladness  of  soul: 
Wine  drunk  largely  is  bitterness  of  soul, 
With  provocation  and  conflict. 
Drunkenness  increaseth  the  rage  of  a  fool  unto 

his  hurt; 
It  diminisheth  strength  and  addeth  wounds. 

Wine-drinking  was  probably  no  commoner  in 
this  period  than  it  had  been  in  the  great  days  of 
Israel :  in  both  periods  it  was  universal.  But  the 
later  and  more  refined  age  had  developed  it  into 
an  art.  In  the  Apocrypha,  for  the  first  time,  we 
hear  of  ''banquets  of  wine".  These  the  Jews  may 
have  learned  from  the  Greeks,  who  had  their 
"symposiums",  or  drinking  parties.  Or  they 
may  have  been  the  kind  of  feast  spoken  of  in 
Isaiah  24.7-9,  under  another  name.  In  either  case, 
the  pious  Jew  who  wrote  this  book  in  Aramaic, 
about  the  year  200  B.  C,  found  nothing  to  object 
to  in  such  feasts,  if  kept  within  bounds.  Of  these 
"banquets  of  wine"  music  seems  to  have  been  an 
inseparable  element.  Here  is  the  way  Ben  Sirach 
speaks  of  them: 

As  a  signet  of  carbuncle  in  a  setting  of  gold, 
So  is  a  concert  of  music  in  a  banquet  of  wine. 
As  a  signet  of  emerald  in  a  work  of  gold. 
So  is  a  strain  of  music  with  pleasant  wine. 
— Jesus  ben  Sirach,  32.5-6. 

The  music  and  the  wine  alike  are  good,  and  each 
is  better  for  the  other. 

These  are  good;  but  there  is  something  still 
better : 


48  THE  BIBLE 

Wine  and  music  rejoice  the  heart; 
And  the  love  of  wisdom  is  above  both. 

— Jesus  ben  Sirach,  40.20. 

Yet  this  ancient  cafe  chantant  was  very  pleas- 
ant; the  poet  comes  back  to  it: 

The  memorial  of  Josiah  is  like  the  composition 

of  incense 
Prepared  by  the  work  of  the  apothecary: 
It  shall  be  sweet  as  honey  in  every  mouth, 
And  as  music  at  a  banquet  of  wiiie. 

— Jesus  ben  Sirach,  49.1. 

All  this  praise  of  alcoholic  wine  is  not  written 
merely  because  the  subject  appealed  to  the 
writer;  but  (as  we  learn  from  his  preface)  the 
author  was  moved  ' '  to  write  somewhat  pertaining 
to  instruction  and  wisdom;  in  order  that  those  who 
love  learning,  and  are  addicted  to  these  things, 
might  make  progress  much  more  by  living  accord- 
ing to  the  law"  (Prologue  to  Jesus  ben  Sirach). 
And  the  author's  grandson  who  translated  the 
book  into  Greek  did  it  ''for  them  also  who  in  the 
land  of  their  sojourning  are  desirous  to  learn, 
fashioning  their  manners  beforehaiirl,  so  as  to 
live  according  to  the  law"  (Prologue).  The 
banquet  of  wine,  then,  is  "according  to  [that  is, 
in  accordance  with]  the  law"  of  God. 

This  review  shows  us  that  the  principle  govern- 
ing drink  is  the  same  in  the  long  interim  between 
the  Old  Testament  and  Christ  as  it  had  been 
throughout  the  Old  Testament.  But  there  were 
one  or  two  differences  of  detail  worth  noting.  One 
is  in  the  same  book,  Jesus  ben  Sirach,  9.10: 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  49 

Forsake  not  an  old  friend; 
For  the  new  is  not  comparable  to  him: 
As  new  wine,  so  is  a  new  friend ; 
If  it  become  old,  thou  shalt  drink  it  with  glad- 
ness. 

This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  Jews  of  Jesus' 
day,  as  we  learn  from  his  words  (Luke  5.39) : 
''No  man  having  drunk  old  wine  desireth  new;  for 
he  saith,  'The  old  is  good  [better]'  ". 

A  change  had  taken  place  in  the  national  taste. 
The  tirosh,  the  new  wine,  the  fresh  wine,  ferment- 
ing, but  not  "ripe",  of  the  old  days,  the  occasion 
of  so  much  simple  harvest  joy,  no  longer  appealed 
to  the  taste;  or  at  least  not  to  the  taste  of  those 
who  set  the  mode.  In  the  first  place,  a  refined 
taste  would  prefer  the  more  delicate  flavor  of  the 
matured  product.  The  cultivated  Jew  probably 
looked  on  tirosh  as  a  plebeian  drink,  raw,  unfin- 
ished, harsh,  good  enough  for  country  folk  and  the 
lower  classes.  For  himself,  he  politely  excused 
himself,  if  he  ever  came  across  it,  with  the  remark, 
"The  old  is  better".  In  the  second  place,  the 
rough  fermenting  wine,  being  more  plentiful,  also 
cheaper,  would  be  drunk,  if  at  all,  much  more 
freely ;  and  the  Jews,  being  now  largely  an  urban 
people,  could  not  stand  so  much  stimulant  as 
their  rude  farmer  ancestors,  when  "Judah  and 
Israel  dwelt  safely,  every  man  under  his  vine  and 
under  his  fig  tree,  from  Dan  even  to  Beersheba" 
(1  Kings  4.25).  Tirosh  in  its  earliest  stages  may, 
on  the  other  hand,  have  been  as  hard  for  city 
people  to  get  as  pure  cider  is  now. 

The  passage  from  country  to  city  life  explains 


50  THE  BIBLE 

another  change,  which  may  in  the  first  place  have 
been  borrowed  from  the  Greeks ;  that  is,  the  custom 
of  diluting  the  wine  with  water,  as  is  commonly 
done  in  France  now.  In  the  early  days  "wine 
mixed  with  water"  was  either  an  adulteration  or 
a  sign  of  poverty  (Is.  1.22).  But  in  the  Hellenistic 
period  "neat"  wine  was  too  strong.  They  diluted 
it  usually  three  parts  of  water  to  one  of  wine; 
which,  curiously,  is  the  proportion  recommended 
by  Hesiod,  in  "Works  and  Days",  for  peasants 
in  the  dog-days  (line  596.  The  passage,  however, 
is  interpolated).  Jesus,  no  doubt,  did  this  at  the 
Passover  Supper.    The  water  was  usually  warm. 

The  passage  of  the  Apocrypha  which  proves 
this  diluting  shows  that,  if  the  Jew  was  then  averse 
to  wine  undiluted,  he  was  no  less  averse  to  water 
unfortified.  Nobody  drank  wine  without  water; 
yet  nobody  who  could  help  it  drank  water  without 
wine.  The  passage  is  that  which  closes  the  Apoc- 
lypha  in  our  English  arrangement,  2  Maccabees, 
15.38-39.  After  stating  that  his  purpose  was,  not 
only  to  tell  the  story  of  the  Maccabees,  but  to 
tell  it  well,  the  writer  gives  this  illustration :  "For, 
as  it  is  distasteful  to  drink  wine  alone,  and  in  like 
manner  again  to  drink  water  alone,  while  the 
mingling  of  wine  with  water  at  once  giveth  full 
pleasantness  to  the  flavor;  so  also  the  fashioning 
of  the  language  delighteth  the  ears  of  them  that 
read  the  story". 

The  glorious  heroism  of  the  Maccabees  had  not 
been  nourished  on  plain  water. 

The  Jews  of  the  Apocrypha  thought  that  in  their 
praise  and  their  use  of  fermented  wine  they  were 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  51 

following  the  ways  of  tlieir  ancestors,  and  '^  living 
according  to  tlie  law"  (Preface  to  Jesus  ben 
Siracli).  We  can  hardly  deny  that  those  Jews 
were  as  well  qualified  to  understand  their  Scrip- 
tures on  this  point  as  we  are.  To  their  scholars 
the  ancient  Hebrew  had  never  ceased  to  be  a 
familiar  tongTie.  And,  if  there  had  been  an  apos- 
tasy from  the  law  and  the  prophets  in  this  matter, 
such  a  revolution  could  not  have  been  effected 
without  one  recorded  protest.  Yet  there  is  not 
even  the  trace  of  one.  We  must  conclude  that 
there  was  no  protest.  The  earlier  Jews  and  the 
later  Jews  were  at  one  in  their  approval  and  use 
of  wine,  as  well  as  in  their  condemnation  of  ex- 
cess. 

II 

Philo. — Philo  was  the  greatest  of  the  Hel- 
lenised  Jews,  that  is,  of  Jews  who  brought 
Greek  culture  and  philosophy  into  the  service  of 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  He  was  entering  on 
his  distinguished  career  when  Jesus  was  born. 
His  life  was  spent  in  Alexandria,  the  intellectual 
center  of  the  world.  He  wrote  voluminously,  and 
a  good  part  of  what  he  wrote  has  survived,  either 
in  the  Greek  or  in  translations.  As  his  writings 
had  to  do  with  the  history  and  religion  of  the 
Jewish  people,  we  should  expect  to  find  some  in- 
dications in  them  of  the  distinction  between  for- 
bidden and  permitted  wines,  if  there  was  such  a 
distinction. 

First,  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  word  used  by 
Philo  for  wine  is  oinos,  the  ordinary  Greek  word 
for  the  fermented  product.    It  is  oinos,  says  Philo, 


52  THE  BIBLE 

that  the  priests  are  to  abstain  from  during  the 
time  of  their  ministration  in  public  worship.  It 
was  oinos,  too,  he  says,  that  God  commanded  the 
people  to  give  the  priests  among  their  first-fruits, 
''a  portion  of  wine  out  of  each  wine-press'*, 
''first-fruits  of  corn  and  oinos  and  oil".  That  is, 
what  the  priests  were  to  abstain  from  on  certain 
occasions  (because  of  the  danger  of  intoxication) 
was  the  very  thing  that  God  ordered  to  be  given 
them  in  return  for  their  services  on  those  occa- 
sions. The  fermented  wine  that  they  were  to 
abstain  from  occasionally  they  were  to  use  habit- 
ually. The  use  of  the  one  word,  oinos,  in  both  con- 
nections, shows  that  in  Philo's  view  the  Scriptures 
made  a  distinction  between  a  forbidden  and  a  per- 
mitted use,  but  not  between  a  forbidden  and  a 
permitted  kind,  of  wine.  It  was  not  one  sort  of 
wine  that  was  forbidden,  while  another  sort  was 
permitted.    It  was  the  same  wine  in  each  case. 

This  is,  further,  confirmed  by  what  Philo  writes 
concerning  the  intoxication  of  Noah.  He  tries  to 
show  that  Noah  was  not  drunken,  by  giving  to  the 
word  "drunken"  a  fanciful  meaning.  This  is, 
of  course,  absurd;  but  a  statement  that  he  makes 
in  supporting  this  dictum  is  conclusive  as  to  his 
view  of  the  Scriptural  teaching  concerning  wine. 
He  asks  the  question,  ''"What  is  the  meaning  of  the 
statement,  'He  drank  of  the  wine  and  was 
drunken'?"  And  then  he  gives  this  answer:  "In 
the  first  place,  the  just  man  did  not  drink  the  wine, 
but  a  portion  of  the  wine,  not  the  whole  of  it  ['he 
drank  of  the  wine']  ;  in  which  case  an  incontinent 
and  debauched  man  does  not  quit  his  means  of 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  53 

debaucliery  till  he  has  first  swallowed  all  the  wine 
that  there  is  before  him ;  but  by  the  religious  and 
sober  man  everything  necessary  for  food  is  used 
in  a  moderate  degree.  And  the  expression,  *He 
was  drunken',  is  here  to  be  taken  simply  as  equiva- 
lent to  ^he  used  the  wine'.  But  there  are  two 
modes  of  'getting  drunk'.  The  one  is  that  of  an 
intemperate  sottishness  which  misuses  wine,  and 
this  offence  is  peculiar  to  the  depraved  and  wicked 
man.  The  other  is  the  use  of  wine,  and  this  be- 
longs to  the  wise.  It  is  therefore  in  the  second 
of  these  meanings  that  the  consistent  and  wise 
Noah  is  here  called  'drunken',  not  as  having  mis- 
used but  as  having  used  wine"  (Questions  and 
Answers  68).  The  distinction  that  Philo  makes, 
and  which  he  thinks  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  make, 
is  not,  therefore,  between  two  wines,  one  good  and 
the  other  evil,  but  between  use  and  misuse  of  the 
one  wine. 

He  has  a  good  deal  more  to  say  about  wine 
throughout  his  works;  one  of  which  is  on  "The 
Planting  of  Noah";  another,  on  "Drunkenness"; 
another,  on  "Sobriety".  The  very  subjects  made 
it  imperative  that  the  distinction  between  two 
wines,  one  unfermented  and  good,  and  the  other 
fermented  and  evil,  should  be  drawn  out,  repeated, 
emphasized,  dwelt  on.  But  there  is  not  a  word 
of  the  sort  in  all  that  he  wrote,  not  one  word. 
Could  a  Two-Wine  Advocate  today,  writing  on 
"Drunkenness"  and  on  "Sobriety",  manage  to 
avoid  even  an  allusion  to  this  vital  distinction? 
Yet  Philo  did.  The  only  practices  in  connection 
with  wine  that  he  censures  are  drunkenness  and 


54  THE  BIBLE 

the  use  of  unmixed  wine  as  leading  to  drunken- 
ness: the  Jews  had  long  ago  adopted  the  Greek 
custom  of  diluting  their  wine  with  water. 

Here  follow  some  extracts  from  Philo  that  are 
both  curious  and  significant.  Wherever  in  these 
the  word  wine  is  used,  it  stands  for  the  Greek 
oinos.  Now  Philo  makes  it  as  clear  as  day,  first, 
that  this  oinos  may  intoxicate;  and,  second,  that 
it  is  right  to  drink  it. 

''The  Planting  of  Noah".— 
XXXVI.  .  .  .  "At  all  events,  it  is  plain  that 
unmixed  wine  is  a  poison,  which  is  the  cause,  if 
not  of  death,  at  least  of  madness.  .  .  .  Since 
wine  [oinos]  is  the  cause  of  madness  and  folly 
to  those  who  indulge  in  it  insatiably".  Notice  the 
''insatiably". 

XXXVIII. — ' '  The  ancients  called  unmixed  wine 
oinos  and  also  methy.  .  .  .  Both  these  words 
[namely,  as  verbal  forms]  intimate  a  taking  of  too 
much  wine  [note  the  "too  much"],  .  .  .  and 
if  he  be  overcome  with  wine,  he  will  also  be 
drunk ' '. 

XXXIX.  .  .  .  "The  men  of  the  present  day 
do  not  drink  wine  as  the  ancients  did.  For  now 
they  drink  eagerly,  without  once  taking  breath,  till 
the  body  and  soul  are  both  wholly  relaxed,  and 
they  keep  on  bidding  their  cup-bearers  bring  more 
wine,  and  are  angry  with  them  if  they  delay,  while 
they  are  cooling  what  is  by  them  called  the  hot 
drink;  and,  in  a  vile  imitation  of  gymnastic  con- 
tests, they  institute  a  contest  among  their  fellow- 
revellers  as  to  who  can  drink  most  wine,  in  which 
they  do  many  glorious  things  to  one  another's 


OUTSIDE  AUTHOKITIES  55 

ears  and  noses,  and  the  tips  of  the  fingers  of  their 
hands,  and  any  other  parts  of  the  body  they  can 
get  at.  .  .  .  But  the  men  of  old  time  began 
every  good  action  with  perfect  sacrifices,  thinking 
that  in  that  way  the  result  would  be  most  favor- 
able to  them.  .  .  ,  Knowing,  therefore,  that 
the  use  and  enjoyment  of  wine  require  much  care, 
they  did  not  drink  unmixed  wine  in  great  quan- 
tities or  at  all  times,  but  only  in  moderation  and 
on  fitting  occasions.  For,  first  of  all,  they  offered 
up  prayers  and  instituted  sacrifices. 
After  sacrificing,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  men  of 
old  to  drink  great  quantities  of  wine.     . 

"And  to  whom  could  the  manner  of  using  un- 
mixed wine,  described  above,  be  more  appropriate 
than  to  wise  men,  to  whom  the  work  to  be  done 
before  drinking,  namely,  sacrificing,  is  so  ap- 
propriate ? ' ' 

XLI.  .  .  .  "Unmixed  wine  seems  to  In- 
crease and  render  more  intense  all  the  natural 
qualities,  whether  they  be  good  or  the  contrary. 
Unmixed  wine,  being  poured  forth  in 
abundance,  makes  the  man  who  is  the  slave  of  his 
passions  still  more  subservient  to  them;  but  it 
renders  him  who  has  them  under  control  more 
manageable  and  amiable." 

"On  Drunkenness". — 

I.  .  .  .  "In  many  places  of  his  history  of 
the  giving  of  the  law  he  [Moses]  mentions  wine, 
.  .  .  and  he  commands  some  persons  to  drink 
it,  but  some  he  does  not  permit  to  do  so;  and  at 
times  he  gives  contrary  directions  to  the  same 
people,  ordering  them  sometimes  to  drink  and 


56  THE  BIBLE 

sometimes  to  abstain.  These,  therefore,  are  the 
persons  who  have  taken  the  great  vow,  to  whom  it 
is  expressly  forbidden  to  drink  unmixed  wine,  be- 
ing the  priests  who  are  engaged  in  offering  sac- 
rifices. But  those  who  drink  wine  are  numerous 
beyond  all  calculation,  and  among  them  are  all 
those  who  are  especially  praised  by  the  law  given 
for  their  virtue." 

XXXIII.  .  .  .  *'Yet  is  not  any  one  when 
about  to  become  the  minister  of  the  Euler  and 
Father  of  the  universe  to  show  himself  superior 
to  meat  and  drink  and  sleep  and  all  the  vulgar 
necessities  of  nature,  but  [not]  to  turn  aside  to 
luxury  and  effeminacy,  and  imitate  the  life  of  the 
intemperate?  And  having  his  eyes  weighed  down 
with  wine,  and  his  head  shaking,  and  bending  his 
neck  on  one  side,  and  belching  forth  intemperance, 
and  being  weak  and  tottering  in  his  whole  body 
is  he  in  that  condition  to  approach  the  sacred 
purifications  and  altars  and  sacrifices  ?  No :  such 
a  one  may  not  without  impiety  even  behold  the 
sacred  flame  at  a  distance." 

''On  Sobriety".— 

I.  .  .  .  "  Sobriety  is  most  advantageous  to 
those  bodies  to  which  the  drinking  of  wine  is  nat- 
urally suitable." 

De  Somniis,  2.38. — "The  Logos  [or  Eeason,  the 
term  used  later  by  St.  John  of  Christ]  is  the 
master  of  the  spiritual  drinking- feast." 

''Legum  Allege riarum",  3.26. — "But  Melchize- 
dek  [the  Logos,  or  Eeason]  shall  bring  forward 
wine  instead  of  water,  and  shall  give  your  souls 
to  drink,  and  shall  cheer  them  with  unmixed  wine, 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  57 

in  order  that  they  may  be  wholly  occupied  with  a 
divine  intoxication,  more  sober  than  sobriety 
itself"  [Evidently  the  physical  wine  could  intoxi- 
cate]. 

Ill 

Josephus. — Josephus  was  a  famous  Jewish  his- 
torian, a  partisan  of  Eome,  who  lived  in  the  gene- 
ration following  Christ. 

It  will,  however,  be  convenient  to  examine  his 
witness  at  this  point,  before  proceeding  to  the  New 
Testament. 

His  great  work  is  *''The  Antiquities",  a  history 
of  the  Jewish  people  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  to  the  outbreak  of  the  late  war  with  Eome, 
a  war  in  which  he  had  a  considerable  part.  In 
this  history  he  follows  the  Scriptures  in  the  por- 
tions covered  by  them ;  and  occasionally  alludes  to 
wine.  The  word  he  uses  (in  his  Greek  translation 
of  his  work)  is  oinos.  What  sort  of  beverage 
oinos  was,  in  his  judgment,  is  clear  from  his  ci- 
tation of  King  Darius 's  question,  Wliich  is  the 
strongest, — wine,  women,  or  truth?  "Wine,  O 
king,  deceives  the  mind  of  those  that  drink  it. 
.  .  .  It  quenches  the  sorrow  of  those  that  are 
under  calamities,  and  makes  men  forget  the  debts 
they  owe  to  others.  .  .  .  When  they  are  become 
sober,  and  they  have  slept  out  their  wine  in  the 
night,  they  arise  without  knowing  anything  they 
have  done  in  their  cups"  (Antiq.  Book  11,  chapter 
3).  Clearly  this  oinos,  wine,  was  not  unfermented 
grape- juice.  The  controversialist  would  be  rash 
indeed  who  set  out  to  prove  that  unfermented! 


58  THE  BIBLE 

grape-juice  was  stronger,  that  is,  more  seductive, 
than  women  and  truth.  The  world  would,  indeed, 
be  in  evil  case,  were  unfermented  grape-juice  its 
mightiest  charm. 

Joseplms  mentions,  too,  this  same  oinos,  wine, 
as  forbidden  to  the  priests  during  their  ministra- 
tion :  ' '  Nor  are  they  permitted  to  drink  wine  so 
long  as  they  wear  those  [sacerdotal]  garments" 
(Antiq.  Book  3,  chapter  12).  This  is  equivalent 
to  their  abstinence  from  wine  while  they  minis- 
tered in  the  temple,  because  only  then  they  wore 
those  sacred  garments,  which  were  laid  up  there 
from  one  time  of  ministration  to  another.  He 
mentions  it  also  as  forbidden  to  the  Nazirites: 
''They  suffer  their  hair  to  grow  long,  and  they 
use  no  wine"  (Antiq.  Book  4,  chapter  4).  It  is 
the  same  oinos,  so  far  as  appears,  that  he  says 
was  ordered  to  be  offered  to  God  in  sacrifice: 
"They  bring  the  same  quantity  of  oil  which  they 
do  of  wine,  and  they  pour  the  wine  about  the 
altar"  (Antiq.  Book  3,  chapter  9).  And  presum- 
ably it  is  this  very  same  beverage,  oinos,  that 
Josephus  associates  with  grain  and  oil  as  provi- 
sions: "The  first  [man]  thou  wilt  see  carrying 
three  loaves  of  bread;  the  second  carrying  a  kid 
of  the  goats;  and  the  third  will  follow  them  car- 
rying a  bottle  of  wine"  [Antiq.  Book  6,  chapter 
4] ;  "With  great  plenty  of  corn  and  wine  and  slain 
beasts"  [Antiq.  Book  8,  chapter  15];  "20,000 
measures  of  wheat,  and  as  many  bottles  of  oil, 
.  .  .  the  same  measure  of  wine"  [Antiq.  Book 
8,  chapter  2] ;  "wine,  and  oil,    .     .     .    fine  flour, 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  59 

.  .  .  salt"  [Antiq.  Book  12,  chapter  3].  It  was 
likewise  this  same  ' '  oinos ' ',  wine,  with  which  Noah 
was  ''drunken"  [Antiq.  Book  1,  chapter  6] ;  and 
also  the  Amalekite  foe  surprised  by  David  [Antiq. 
Book  6,  chapter  14]. 

That  Josephus  believed  the  oinos,  wine,  of  which 
he  has  been  speaking,  to  be  different  from  fresh 
grape-juice  is  evident  from  a  passage  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  latter.  It  is  where  he  is  para- 
phrasing Joseph's  interpretation  of  the  dream  of 
the  chief  butler,  Genesis  40.  The  butler  relates 
(verse  11)  how,  in  his  dream,  "Pharaoh's  cup  was 
in  my  hand;  and  I  took  the  grapes  and  pressed 
them  into  Pharaoh's  cup"  (Antiq.  2,  5). 
Josephus  paraphrases  the  passage  thus:  "He 
said  therefore  that  in  his  sleep  he  saw  three 
clusters  of  grapes  .  .  .  and  that  he  squeezed 
them  into  a  cup,  and  when  he  had  strained  the 
gleukos  he  gave  it  to  the  king  to  drink".  The 
word  for  this  fresh  grape-juice  is  not  oinos,  but 
gleukos;  which  is  the  usual  Greek  word  for  this 
product. 

Nowhere  does  Josephus  intimate  that  there  was 
a  bad  and  forbidden  oinos,  wine ;  though  he  surely 
knew  that  the  oinos,  wine,  used  in  the  sacrifice  was 
yayin,  fermented  and  alcoholic.  There  is  nothing 
in  Josephus  to  suggest  that  any  wine  was  evil ;  or 
that  any  kind  of  wine  was  evil.  His  association 
of  it  with  oil  and  meal  shows  that  to  him  wine  was 
a  food  or  refreshment.  Without  question,  too, 
Josephus  assumed  that  in  his  view  of  wine  he 
was  in  accord  with  the  Scriptures. 


6Q  THE  BIBLE 

Eabbinical  Literature. — Rabbinical  literature  is 
the  literature  of  the  oldest  Jewish  philosophy  and 
theology.  It  is,  in  fact  or  form,  a  commentary  on 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  As  such,  it  has  many 
things  to  say  of  wine,  and  all  that  it  says  on  this 
subject  confirms  what  we  have  learned  from  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha :  wine  is  always 
a  good  gift  of  God,  which  may  be  abused. 

The  following  interesting  citations  are  from  the 
Jewish  Encyclopedia,  under  Wine. 

"In  Aboth,  4.26,  the  man  that  learns  from  a 
young  and  immature  teacher  is  compared  to  one 
*  that  eats  unripe  grapes  and  drinks  wine  from  the 
vat'  ".  This  shows  how  little  unfermented  grape- 
juice  was  thought  of. 

* '  The  wines  of  Syria  were  not  considered  drink- 
able under  two  to  four  months". 

New  wine  is  defined  as  wine  of  the  last  vintage : 
it  might  thus  be  nearly  a  year  old.  Old  wine  was 
of  the  vintage  last  but  one;  that  is,  up  to  two 
years  old.  Very  old  wine  was  of  the  vintage  be- 
fore that.  The  Jews  had  no  old  wine,  as  we  should 
consider  it ;  that  is,  wine  of  several  or  many  years. 
They  had  difficulty  in  keeping  it  even  three  years. 
Their  methods  was  so  crude  that  the  wine  soon 
set  up  acetous  fermentation.  As  for  the  art  of 
preserving  unfermented  grape-juice,  there  is  not 
a  suggestion,  in  the  Bible  or  out  of  the  Bible,  that 
the  Jews  ever  heard  of  it. 

Drinking  places  are  frequently  spoken  of,  under 
the  name  of  beth-ha-yayin,  house  of  wine.  Indeed, 
the  Song  of  Songs  speaks  of  one  in  2.4: 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  61 

He  brought  me  to  the  house  of  wine, 
And  his  banner  over  me  was  love. 

This  Eabbinical  literature  is  fond  of  building  up 
moral  lessons  on  what  are  often  no  better  than 
puns.  Thus,  there  are  two  Hebrew  words,  Eosh, 
meaning  the  head,  and  Eash,  meaning  poor ;  which 
looked  the  same,  since  in  this  Hebrew  the  vowels 
were  not  written.  This  offered  a  fine  open- 
ing for  a  warning  against  the  dangers  of 
ti-rosh.  Accordingly,  it  is  explained  that  wine 
is  called  tirosh  because  one  who  drinks  it 
habitually  is  certain  to  become  Eash,  poor. 
Eabbi  Kahana  said  that  tirosh,  drunk  in  modera- 
tion, gives  Eosh,  that  is,  headship,  or  leadership; 
if  drunk  to  excess,  it  brings  to  Eash,  that  is,  pov- 
erty. Again:  ''If  thou  abuse  tirosh,  thou  shall 
be  Eash;  if  thou  rightly  use  it,  thou  shall  be  Eosh" 
(Yoma  76.2). 

The  Targumists,  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  render 
tirosh  in  every  instance  (the  word  having  become 
obsolete)  by  chamar,  undeniably  an  alcoholic  bev- 
erage. 

A  Jewish  sage  says,  *'Wine  is  the  greatest  of  all 
medicines ;  where  wine  is  lacking,  there  drugs  are 
necessary".  E.  Huna,  "Wine  helps  to  open  the 
heart  to  reasoning".  E.  Papa  thought  that,  when 
one  could  substitute  beer  for  wine,  it  should  be 
done  for  the  sake  of  economy.  But  his  view  was 
opposed  on  the  ground  that  the  preservation  of 
the  health  is  paramount  to  consideration  of  econ- 
omy. "Very  old  wine  benefits  the  whole  body" 
(Pes.  426).    Eabbi  was  cured  of  a  severe  disorder 


62  THE  BIBLE 

of  the  bowels  by  drinking  apple-wine  70  years  old, 
which  had  been  preserved  by  a  Gentile. 

*'The  good  things  of  Egypt",  which  Joseph  sent 
to  his  father,  are  supposed  by  E.  Eleazar  to  have 
included  "old  wine",  which  satisfies  the  elderly 
person, — old  wine  for  an  old  person.  Until  the 
age  of  40,  liberal  eating  is  beneficial;  but  after 
40  it  is  better  to  drink  more  and  eat  less  (Shab. 
152a).  R.  Papa  said  that  wine  is  more  nourish- 
ing when  taken  in  large  mouthfuls.  Wine  gives  an 
aj)petite,  cheers  the  body,  and  satisfies  the  stom- 
ach (Ber.  35b).  After  bleeding,  according  to  R. 
Samuel,  wine  should  be  taken  freely,  in  order  that 
the  red  of  the  wine  may  replace  the  red  of  the 
blood  which  has  been  lost  (Shab.  129a). 

No  other  beverage  in  religious  ceremonies  is 
known  in  the  Rabbinical  literature.  Over  all  fruit 
the  benediction  used  is  that  for  the  fruits  of  the 
tree;  but  over  wine  a  special  benediction  for  the 
fruits  of  the  vine  is  pronounced  (Ber.  6.1).  One 
sage  was  of  the  opinion  that  beer  might  be  used, 
religiously,  in  place  of  wine  in  countries  where 
that  is  the  natural  beverage. 

Following  Prov.  31.6, — "Give  strong  drink  unto 
him  that  is  ready  to  perish,  and  wine  unto  the  bit- 
ter in  soul", — the  Rabbins  ordered  ten  cups  of 
wine  to  be  served  with  "the  meal  of  consolation", 
at  the  mourner's  house ;  three  cups  before  the  meal, 
three  cups  between  courses,  four  cups  after  grace  I 
Later  four  more  cups  were  add ;  but,  as  these  were 
found  to  produce  drunkenness,  they  were  discon- 
tinued. 

Throughout  the  vast  and  rambling  commentary 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  63 

and  exegesis  that  make  up  this  Jewish  literature, 
the  only  wine  in  ordinary  use  is  the  wine  that  in 
excess  leads  to  drunkenness.  This  wine  is  every- 
where regarded  as  among  God's  choicest  bless- 
ings. The  reasoning  of  the  sages  is  at  times  fan- 
tastic ;  but  their  meaning  is  clear : — wine  is  good, 
— do  not  misuse  it.  Nowhere  is  unfermented 
grape-juice  recommended  as  a  substitute.  It  is 
named,  in  general,  only  to  be  slurred. 

But  here  a  distinction  must  be  borne  in  mind. 
For  ritual  purposes,  grape- juice  forty  days  old  or 
more  was  considered  fermented ;  under  forty  days, 
unfermented.  Thus  the  commentary  of  the  Tal- 
mud (Krithoth  13.B)  upon  Leviticus  10.9, — for- 
bidding priests  to  drink,  while  on  duty, — is  as 
follows : — 

1. — "If  the  priest  had  partaken  of  the  juice  of 
grapes  which  was  less  than  forty  days  old,  then 
God  would  not  destroy  him". 

2.— The  Talmud  (Baba  Bathra  97  A)  states  that 
the  wine  used  for  the  Kiddush  service  on  the  Sab- 
bath and  Holy  Days  must  be  at  least  forty  days 
old.  However,  if  such  is  not  to  be  had,  a  juice 
of  j^ounger  age  may  be  used. — Rabbi  B.  Hailperin. 

Clearly,  this  juice  ' '  of  younger  age ' ',  which  had 
been  in  ferment  les§  than  forty  days,  was,  in  gen- 
eral, a  strongly  alcoholic  beverage.  It  might  be 
really  unfermented,  but  the  chance  of  its  being  so 
in  any  instance  was  small ;  say,  thirty-nine  to  one 
against  it. 

Note. — At  this  point  it  is  convenient  to  explain 
that  the  "Vulgate",  which  I  cite  frequently  as  a 
witness  to  the  nature  of  Bible  wines,  is  the  Latin 


64  THE  BIBLE 

translation  of  the  Bible,  out  of  the  original  lan- 
guages, made  by  St.  Jerome,  toward  the  end  of  the 
4th  Century.  This  Vulgate,  "vulgar",  or  "ver- 
nacular", was  the  authorized  translation  in 
Western  Christendom  for  over  a  thousand  years, 
and  is  so  still  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 


V 

The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  on  "Wine". — "There 
were  different  kinds  of  wine.  'Yayin'  was  the 
ordinary  matured  fermented  wine;  'tirosh'  was  a 
new  wine;  and  'shekar'  was  an  old  powerful  wine 
(* strong  drink').  The  red  wine  was  the  better 
and  stronger  (Ps.  75.9  [A.  V.  8];  Prov.  23.31). 
Perhaps  the  wines  of  Helbon  (Ezek.  27.18)  and  the 
wine  of  Lebanon  (Hos.  14.7)  were  white  wines. 
.  .  .  In  metaphorical  usage,  in  Rabbinical  lit- 
erature, wine  represents  the  essence  of  goodness. 
The  Tora,  Jerusalem,  Israel,  the  Messiah,  the 
righteous  are  all  compared  to  wine.  The  wicked 
are  likened  unto  vinegar,  and  the  good  man  who 
turns  to  wickedness  is  compared  to  sour  wine." 

Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  II.  33b,  says  of 
tirosh:  "It  is  said  to  take  away  the  understand- 
ing, in  Hosea  4.11,  and  its  intoxicating  qualities 
are  referred  to  by  the  Talmudists". 

The  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  summing  up  the  Old 
Testament  witness  on  Wine,  says:— 

"Occurring  over  140  times  in  the  traditional 
text  of  the  Old  Testament,  yayin  denotes,  like  its 
Greek  and  Latin  congeners,  oinos  and  vinum,  the 
juice  of  the  grape,  fermented  and  matured  in  ap- 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  65 

propriate  vessels.  It  is  represented  as  in  daily- 
use,  whether  at  the  ordinary  family  meal  and  the 
more  ambitious  banquet,  or  at  the  sacrificial  feast 
and  in  the  ritual  of  the  sanctuary.  Yayin  is  uni- 
formly rendered  by  luine  in  the  English  Version, 
by  oinos  in  the  Septuagint  (except  Job  32.19, 
where  the  sense  is  correctly  given  by  gleukos, 
sweet  fermenting  must),  and  by  vinum  in  the 
Latin.  In  Old  Testament  yayin  is  confined  to 
grape  wine.  ...  By  analogy  we  ought  to 
regard  tirosh  as  primarily  the  freshly  expressed 
and  still  unfermented  grape-juice.  ...  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  important,  in  view  of  the  con- 
troversies to  which  the  term  tirosh  has  given  rise, 
to  note  that  in  certain  passages  it  clearly  denotes 
the  product  of  fermentation,  or  wine  properly  so 
called.  Its  application,  in  this  respect,  however, 
was  apparently  limited  to  'new  wine',  as  fre- 
quently rendered  in  Authorized  and  Revised  Ver- 
sions, either  while  still  in  the  fermenting  stage  or 
during  the  next  few  months,  while  the  process  of 
maturing  was  still  incomplete. ' '  The  second  reason 
for  this  view  given  by  the  encyclopedia  is: 
'^  Tirosh  is  repeatedly  mentioned  as  subject  to  the 
law  of  tithes  and  of  the  first-fruits  (Deut.  12.17, 
14.23,  18.4;  Neh.  10.37  and  elsewhere).  Now  the 
later  Jewish  code  specifies  the  precise  moment 
when  the  expressed  grape-juice  becomes  subject 
to  the  law  of  tithe:  'Must  is  tithable  from  the 
moment  it  throws  up  scum'.  .  .  .  Even  the 
inferior  wine  made  by  pouring  water  on  the  ref- 
use of  the  press  had  to  ferment  before  becoming 
subject  to  tithe.    .     .     .    Hence,  when  it  is  said 


66  THE  BIBLE 

that  tirosli  shall  be  drunk  in  the  courts  of  the 
sanctuary  (Is.  62.8  f),  the  conclusion  is  unavoid- 
able that  tirosh  is  not  here  the  unfermented  must, 
but  true  fermented  wine". 

The  third  reason  for  this  view  of  the  meaning 
of  tirosh  is  ''the  evidence  of  the  Versions".  With 
two  exceptions  the  Septuagint  has  uniformly  ren- 
dered tirosh  by  oinos;  while  Jerome,  with  very 
few  exceptions,  renders  by  vinum,  not  as  we  might 
expect,  by  tnustum. 

"With  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  New  Testament  to  the  general  question 
of  the  use  of  fermented  beverages,  it  is  worthy 
of  note  that,  while  tirosh,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
sometimes  denotes  the  unfermented  must,  there  is 
no  trace  in  Hebrew  literature,  from  the  earliest 
jDcriod  to  the  close  of  the  Mishna,  of  any  method 
of  preserving  it  in  the  unfermented  state.  Indeed, 
it  has  been  maintained  that  'with  the  total  absence 
of  antiseptic  precautions  characteristic  of  Orien- 
tals, it  would  have  been  impossible  to  do  so'  (Prof. 
Macalister,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary  2.34  b, 
in  this  agreeing  with  many  modern  authorities). 
Throughout  the  Old  Testament  the  use  of  wine  as 
a  daily  beverage  appears  as  an  all  but  universal 
custom.  Even  its  use  to  the  extent  of  exhilaration 
is  implicitly  approved  (Gen.  43.34;  Judg.  9.13;  Ps. 
104.15;  Pro.  31.7),  whilst  the  value  of  alcohol  as 
a  stimulant  in  sickness  and  distress  is  explicitly 
recognized  (Pro.  31.6;  1  Tim.  5.23). 

The  New  Schaff-Herzog  Eeligious  Encyclo- 
pedia, on  Wine : — 

"The  usual  designation  for  fermented  grape- 


OUTSIDE  AUTHORITIES  67 

juice  is  yayin,  corresponding  to  Greek  oinos  and 
Latin  vinum.  Tirosh  is  used  to  denote  the  newly 
extracted  grape-juice,  and  also  the  juice  yet  con- 
tained in  the  cluster.  There  is,  however,  no  special 
emphasis  herein  upon  the  distinction  'not  yet  fer- 
mented', since  in  the  Orient  fermentation  begins 
very  quickly  after  the  pressing,  and  even  the  tirosh 
is  accredited  with  intoxicating  effects  (Hos.  4.11 ; 
Dent.  12.17;  18.4). 


CHAPTEE   III 

THE   GOSPELS 


If  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  arranged 
in  the  order  in  which  they  were  written,  the  Gos- 
pels would  come  last,  not  first :  some  scholars,  in- 
deed, think  that  the  book  which  now  stands  last, 
the  Revelation,  was  written  first.  However,  as  far 
as  the  language  is  concerned,  it  is  all  sufficiently 
of  a  piece,  certainly  so  in  the  matter  of  vocabulary. 

Wine  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  '' strong  drink"  once.  The  word  for 
the  latter  is  merely  the  Hebrew  shechar,  or 
shichra,  transcribed  into  the  Greek  "sikera".  It 
is  used  in  the  announcement  of  the  angel  Gabriel 
to  Zacharias  concerning  John  the  Baptist,  "He 
shall  drink  no  wine  nor  strong  drink"  (Luke 
1.15) :  John  was  to  be  a  Nazirite  for  his  whole 
life,  like  Samson  and  Samuel  (Internat.  Crit.  Com. 
on  Luke).  Wliatever  the  composition  of  this 
'^ strong  drink",  all  agree  that  it  was  alcoholic. 
John's  life  was  to  be  peculiar  in  almost  every 
respect;  he  lived  in  the  desert;  he  ate  what  the 
desert  furnished;  his  clothing  was  primitive. 
None  of  these  renunciations  was  of  obligation  for 
ordinary  people ;  and  neither  was  the  renunciation 
of  wine  and  "strong  drink". 

Indeed,  the  distinction  of  the  Nazirite  was  not 
that  he  renounced  things  that  were  wrong  for 

68 


THE  GOSPELS  69 

everybody, — this  would  have  been  no  distinction, 
— but  that  he  renounced  things  that  were  lawful 
for  everybody.  John  is  the  only  Nazirite  named 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  he  is  also  the  only 
person  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  to  whom 
wine  and  ''strong  drink"  are  forbidden. 

n 

With  one  exception  the  Greek  word  rendered 
wine,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  everywhere  oinos, 
the  classic  word  for  the  fully  fermented  beverage. 
The  one  exception  is  in  Acts  2.13.  The  Jews  were 
expressing  their  amazement  at  the  Gift  of 
Tongues,  at  Pentecost.  "But  others  mocking 
said,  'They  are  filled  with  new  wine'.**  The 
word  for  "new  wine"  is  gleukos.  Now  the  dic- 
tionaries say  that  gleukos  is  the  classic  word  for 
the  fresh,  unfermented  grape- juice.  That  it  usu- 
ally has  this  sense  is  undoubted.  As  we  have  seen, 
the  juice  squeezed  from  the  clusters  of  grapes 
into  Pharaoh's  cup  (Gen.  40.11)  is  called  by 
Josephus  (Antiquities  2.5)  gleukos.  But  this  pas- 
sage in  the  Acts  shows  that  gleukos  had  a  further 
meaning.  The  "gleukos"  here  spoken  of  could 
intoxicate.  This  fact  constituted  the  very  point 
of  the  sneer.  The  hostile  Jews  explained  the  ex- 
traordinary performances  of  the  Apostles  on  this 
occasion  by  saying  that  they  were  "filled  with 
gleukos",  that  is,  drink.  It  has  indeed  been  main- 
tained that  they  conveyed  their  meaning  not  di- 
rectly, but  by  way  of  irony,  using  the  term  "new 
wine"  in  its  ordinary  sense  of  unfermented  grape- 


70  THE  BIBLE 

juice, — thus:  ''I  suppose  you  would  have  us  be- 
lieve that  these  men  got  into  this  extraordinary- 
state  by  imbibing  innocent  grape-juice";  insinuat- 
ing, of  course,  that  they  were  drunk  on  genuine 
old  wine;  for  the  Apostles  could  not  have  gotten 
real  gleukos,  new  wine,  unfermented,  if  they  had 
wished,  since  the  feast  of  Pentecost  was  eight 
months  after  the  grape  harvest.  It  is  a  fact,  too, 
that  the  Vulgate,  or  Latin,  version  of  this  passage 
translates  gleukos  by  mustum,  which  always  means 
the  unfermented  juice.  The  question  is  whether 
gleukos,  in  addition  to  its  proper  sense  of  unfer- 
mented grape-juice,  might  also  mean  the  newest, 
or  latest,  fermented  wine.  If  it  could,  then  the 
use  of  the  word  in  classic  Greek  must  have  been 
modified  by  Grecian  Jews  under  the  influence  of 
the  old  Hebrew  word  tirosh,  which  had  a  like  ex- 
tension of  meaning,  tirosh  meaning  the  juice  from 
its  expression  through  every  stage  till  it  became 
fully  matured  wine,  or  yayin.  Greek  words  were 
frequently  bent  from  their  classic  use  to  parallel 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic  terms.  Is  there  any  evidence 
that  the  classic  Greek  word  gleukos  was  so  treated 
in  Bible  Greek? 

There  is  conclusive  evidence  of  it.    The  verse. 
Job  32.19, 

Behold,  my  breast  is  as  wine  which  hath  no  vent ; 
Like  new  wine-skins,  it  is  ready  to  burst, 

alludes,  beyond  question,  to  fermenting  wine,  wine 
that,  in  excess,  will  go  to  the  head ;  yet  the  Greek 
of  the  Septuagint  has  gleukos,  which  it  terms 


THE  GOSPELS  71 

''boiling";  that  is,  through  the  force  of  fermenta- 
tion. 

Gleukos,  then,  could  mean  "new  wine";  that 
is,  wine  made  at  the  previous  vintage;  and  this 
sense  best  suits  the  passage  in  Acts  2.13.  In  fact, 
there  is  no  justification  for  seeking  any  other. 
The  critics  of  the  Apostles  meant  just  what  they 
said, — that  they  were  drunk  on  new  wine,  which 
was  more  plentiful  and  cheaper  than  the  old. 

Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  II.  34  a,  does  not 
doubt  that  this  is  the  sense  of  the  passage: 
''Gleukos,  new  sweet  wine,  is  mentioned  in  Acts 
2.13  as  that  by  which  the  Jews  thought  the 
Apostles  were  intoxicated  at  Pentecost.  It  can- 
not have  been  unf  ermented,  as  this  would  not  have 
produced  the  effect,  and  Pentecost  was  eight 
months  after  the  vintage". 

The  Encyclopedia  Biblica  says  of  this  word 
gleukos  and  of  tliis  passage,  in  the  article  'on 
"Wine", — "Gleukos  is  used  of  the  'sweet'  grape- 
juice  through  all  the  stages  of  its  passage  into 
fermented  wine.  ...  In  the  passage  before 
us  (Acts  2.13)  the  reference  is  clearly  to  the 
strongly  intoxicating  qualities  of  new  and  imma- 
ture wine,  in  this  case  wine  of  the  preceding 
vintage". 

The  later  stage  of  the  gleukos  must  have  coin- 
cided with  the  first  stage  of  "the  new  wine", 
spoken  of  in  that  passage  of  our  Lord's  teaching 
which  tells  of  new  wine  in  old  wine-skins  and  in 
new  wine-skins,  in  Matt.  9.17,  Mark  2.22,  and  Luke 
5.37-39 :  Men  do  not  put  new  wine  into  old  wine- 
skins, for  the  skins  would  burst ;  but  they  put  new 


72  THE  BIBLE 

wine  into  fresh  wine-skins.  Again;  one  who  has 
drunk  old  wine  has  no  desire  for  new ;  for  he  says, 
*'The  old  is  good".  But  the  Greek  for  new  wine, 
here,  is  not  one  word,  but  two,  "new"  "wine", 
just  as  in  English.  And,  besides,  this  new  wine 
could  not  have  been  the  unfermented  juice,  for 
this  was  not  put  in  the  skins.  The  juice  was  left 
in  the  vats,  or  perhaps  in  open  jars,  until  fer- 
mentation set  in,  and  then  it  was  transferred  for 
storage  to  large  ox-skins  (Hastings'  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible ;  Article,  Food).  The  gleukos  of  Acts  2.13 
was  the  new  wine  of  our  Lord's  parable  in  one 
of  its  stages. 

Ill 

The  word  oinos,  with  its  compounds,  is  used 
for  wine  in  the  New  Testament  some  thirty-five 
times.  Half  a  dozen  of  these  uses  are  figurative, 
as  "The  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God".  For  the 
rest,  it  is  evident  enough  what  this  oinos,  wine, 
was.  Paul  exhorts  the  saints  and  the  faithful  in 
Christ  Jesus,  in  Ephesus,  "Be  not  drunk  with 
oinos,  wherein  is  riot,  but  be  filled  with  the 
Spirit"  (Eph.  5.18).  In  Rev.  17.2  St.  John  speaks 
of  those  who  were  "drunken  with  the  oinos  of  her 
fornication",  a  figure  that  would  have  lost  its 
point,  unless  the  wine  could  make  drunk.  St. 
Paul  lays  down  as  a  qualification  of  deacons  that 
they  must  be  "not  given  to  much  oinos"  (1  Tim. 
3.8).  He  would  no  more  have  warned  against 
excess  in  fresh  grape-juice  than  against  excess  in 
water  or  milk.  A  few  verses  earlier  (1  Tim.  3.3) 
he  had  said  that  bishops  must  not  be  "quarrelsome 


THE  GOSPELS  73 

over  oinos".  At  least,  that  is  one  rendering  of 
the  passage.  The  injunction  is  repeated  in  Titus 
1.7.  In  Titus  2.3  he  enjoins  aged  women  not  to 
be  ''enslaved  to  much  oinos". 

Oinos  being  unmistakably  alcoholic  in  these 
passages,  the  natural  conclusion  is  that  it  is  alco- 
holic in  other  passages  where  no  difference  is  in- 
dicated. Where  one  and  the  same  oinos  will  serve 
acceptably  in  all  the  passages,  it  is  superfluous  to 
postulate  a  second  and  different.  For  example,  in 
the  very  Epistle  in  which  St.  Paul  warned  against 
excess  and  quarreling,  he  tells  Timothy  (1  Tim. 
5.23) :  "Be  no  longer  a  drinker  of  water,  but  use 
a  little  wine  for  thy  stomach's  sake  and  thine 
often  infirmities ' '.    This  wine  is  alcoholic. 

Paul  writes  in  Rom.  14.21,  "It  is  good  not  to 
eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  oinos,  nor  to  do  anything 
whereby  thy  brother  stumbleth".  This  looks  like 
a  counsel  against  wine.  Yet  it  can  be  so  only  if 
the  oinos  meant  is  alcoholic.  But  how  do  we  know 
this?  How  do  we  know  that  this  oinos  is  not  un- 
fermented  grape- juice  ?  For  the  sound  reason 
that  in  passages  that  are  unmistakable  oinos 
means  the  wine  that  can  intoxicate,  and  there  is 
nothing  inconsistent  with  that  sense  here.  No  bet- 
ter reason  could  be  asked.  But,  if  that  canon  of 
interpretation  holds  here,  it  holds  elsewhere. 
What  St.  Paul's  general  doctrine  is,  as  laid  down 
in  this  and  other  passages,  will  be  considered  later. 
Here  we  are  only  asking  what  he  understands  by 
wine. 

In  the  passage  about  John  the  Baptist,  already 
alluded  to  (Lu.  1.15),  "He  shall  drink  neither  oinos 


74  THE  BIBLE 

nor  strong  drink'*,  the  oinos  is  obviously,  from  its 
correlative  "strong  drink", — not  to  speak  of  the 
presumption  from  unmistakable  use  elsewhere, — 
an  alcoholic  beverage;  and  this  is  not,  I  think, 
denied. 

So  far,  then,  we  have  six  passages  in  which 
oinos,  without  question,  can  intoxicate.  We  have 
three  others  in  which  it  is  admitted  to  be  of  the 
same  character  from  presumption  and  inference. 

The  Good  Samaritan  came  to  the  wounded  man, 
*'and  bound  uj)  his  wounds,  pouring  on  them  oil 
and  oinos"  (Luke  10.34).  This  was  obviously  a 
well  known  remedy ;  and  in  fact  it  is  mentioned  in 
Eabbinical  literature.  The  oil  and  the  wine  were 
used  separately  or  mixed.  If,  now,  the  wine  was 
alcoholic,  it  had  a  real  antiseptic  value ;  but,  if  it 
was  fresh  grape-juice,  it  would  have  been  worth- 
less: sugar  and  water  would  have  answered  as 
welL  In  that  case,  it  would  be  hard  to  account  for 
its  use  as  a  household  remedy.  Besides,  a  trav- 
eler might  well  have  had  a  small  skin  of  wine  with 
him, — travelers  carry  these  commodities  today; — 
but  how  could  the  Samaritan  have  produced  unf  er- 
mented  grape-juice  on  the  spot  1  This  wine,  poured 
on  the  wounds,  was  unmistakably  alcoholic.  The 
Good  Samaritan  carried  fermented  wine  with  him, 
when  he  went  on  a  journey. 

The  story  of  the  Crucifixion  tells  that  ''They 
offered  him  oinos  mingled  with  myrrh :  but  he  re- 
ceived it  not"  (Mk.  15.23).  ''It  was  a  merciful 
Jewish  practice  to  give  to  those  led  to  execution 
a  draught  of  strong  wine  mixed  with  myrrh,  so  as 
to  deaden  consciousness"  (Edersheim's  "Life  and 


THE  GOSPELS  75 

Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah").  This  oinos,  then, 
was  alcoholic:  fresh  grape-juice,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, would  have  been  useless.  If  it  had 
been  desired  only  to  moisten  the  parched  mouth 
and  throat,  water  would  have  been  best,  since  there 
is  nothing  like  it  to  relieve  intense  thirst.  There 
would  have  been  no  object  in  offering  Jesus  fresh 
grape-juice;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  would 
have  been  no  object  in  his  declining  it.  As  it  was, 
he  declined  the  wine,  because  he  chose  to  suffer 
and  die  in  full  possession  of  his  faculties.  Later, 
when  it  was  solely  a  matter  of  relieving  his  thirst, 
he  accepted,  the  "vinegar",  as  he  would  have 
water.  "The  translation  vinegar  is  incorrect 
.  this  is  simply  the  ordinary  sour  wine  of 
the  country,  which  would  be  procured  probably 
from  the  soldiers"  (Gould,  on  Mark  15.36,  in  the 
International  Critical  Commentary).  This  rough 
wine,  too,  was  alcoholic.  Thus,  the  first  act  of 
Jesus'  ministry  was  the  making  of  alcoholic  wine, 
in  Cana  of  Galilee ;  and  his  last  act  was  the  drink- 
ing of  alcoholic  wine,  on  the  cross. 

Thus  far,  then,  the  oinos,  wine,  of  the  New 
Testament  is  alcoholic. 

Let  us  examine  now  the  familiar  passage  which 
contrasts  the  asceticism  of  John  the  Baptist  with 
the  indulgence  of  Jesus.  Even  fair-minded  Jews 
were  perplexed  at  what  seemed  the  greater  piety 
of  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees :  these 
fasted,  "but  thy  disciples  fast  not"  (Mark  2.18). 
The  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  fasted, 
because  their  leaders  and  teachers  did.  The 
disciples  of  Jesus  did  not,  because  Jesus  did  not. 


76  THE  BIBLE 

To  many,  Jesus'  self-indulgence  in  this  direction 
must  have  been  a  scandal, — he  a  reprover  of  the 
clergy  and  even  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  yet  eating 
and  drinking  just  like  everybody  else !  Jesus  re- 
buked this  censoriousness,  and  offered  no  apolo- 
gies :  ''John  the  Baptist  is  come,  eating  no  bread 
nor  drinking  oinos ;  and  ye  say,  'He  hath  a  demon'. 
The  Son  of  man  is  come  eating  and  drinking ;  and 
ye  say,  'Behold,  a  gluttonous  man,  and  a  wine- 
bibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners!'  And 
wisdom  is  justified  of  all  her  children"  (Luke  7.33- 
35).  Clearly  the  oinos  that  John  the  Baptist  did 
not  drink  was  the  oinos  that  Jesus  did  drink.  In 
both  cases  this  oinos  was  the  same  as  the  oinos 
that  we  have  been  examining  in  other  passages, 
the  very  same  as  the  oinos  of  which  St.  Paul  said, 
*'Be  not  drunken  with  oinos,  wherein  is  excess". 
The  slanderous  term,  oinos-bibber  that  our  Lord's 
enemies  applied  to  him  is  the  same  as  is  used  in 
the  Septuagint  version  of  Proverbs  23.20: 

Be  not  among  oinos-bibbers. 
Among  gluttonous  eaters  of  flesh : 
For  the  drunkard  and  the  glutton  shall  come  to 
poverty. 

'The  oinos-bibber  and  the  drunkard  are  here  one 
and  the  same ;  which  shuts  out  unf ermented  grape- 
juice.  But  the  oinos-bibber  might  not  carry  his 
excess  to  the  point  of  intoxication ;  a  man  merited 
the  reproach  who  drank  more  than  was  good  for 
him, — who  was  too  fond  of  wine ;  and  this  is  prob- 
ably as  far  as  our  Lord's  enemies  intended  the 
reproach, — he  was  too  fond  of  eating  and  drinking. 


THE  GOSPELS  77 

That  anybody  could  become  so  addicted  to  un- 
fermented  grape-juice  as  to  call  for  rebuke  and 
stigma  is  improbable;  but  that  this  excess  could 
become  among  all  classes  so  common  and  so 
serious  and  so  permanent  as  to  constitute  a  social 
nuisance,  a  public  danger,  and  a  national  and  in- 
ternational sin  is  too  fantastical  to  be  thought  of. 
Did  you  ever  know  anyone  to  go  wrong  on  unfer- 
mented  grape-juice!  Much  less  whole  classes, 
populations,  and  races'?  The  gilded  youth  of 
Isaiah's  day,  or  of  our  Lord's,  debauched  them- 
selves on  what  the  Old  Testament  calls  yayin ;  the 
New  Testament,  oinos ;  the  Vulgate,  vinum ;  in  the 
English  language,  wine.  When  Jesus  was  called 
a  wine-bibber,  they  meant  what  we  mean  when  we 
speak  of  some  one  as  a  drinking  man.  Jesus  said 
that  he  did  drink;  yet  they  lied  when  they  called 
him  a  drinking  man,  meaning  one  who  drank  im- 
moderately. 

This  oinos,  then,  was  alcoholic. 

IV 

And  now  we  come  to  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana 
of  Galilee.  The  account  of  it  is  given  by  St.  John, 
2.1-11,  as  follows: 

''And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  in 
Cana  of  Galilee;  and  the  mother  of  Jesus  was 
there :  and  Jesus  also  was  bidden,  and  his  disciples, 
to  the  marriage.  And  when  the  wine  failed,  the 
mother  of  Jesus  saith  unto  him.  They  have  no 
wine.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Woman,  what 
have  I  to  do  with  thee  1  mine  hour  is  not  yet  come. 


78  THE  BIBLE 

His  mother  saitli  unto  the  servants,  Whatsoever 
he  saith  unto  you,  do  it.  Now  there  were  six 
waterpots  of  stone  set  there  after  the  Jews'  man- 
ner of  purifying,  containing  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece.  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Fill  the  waterpots 
with  water.  And  they  filled  them  up  to  the  brim. 
And  he  saith  unto  them,  Draw  out  now,  and  bear 
unto  the  ruler  of  the  feast.  And  they  bare  it. 
And  when  the  ruler  of  the  feast  tasted  the  water 
now  become  wine,  and  knew  not  whence  it  was 
(but  the  servants  that  had  drawn  the  water  knew), 
the  ruler  of  the  feast  calleth  the  bridegroom,  and 
saith  unto  him.  Every  man  setteth  on  first  the  good 
wine ;  and  when  men  have  become  drunk  [Kevised 
Version,  'have  drunk  freely'],  then  that  which  is 
worse:  thou  hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  now". 

Now  was  that  oinos  real,  fermented  wine,  or 
was  it  gleukos,  fresh  grape- juice?  First,  the  word 
oinos,  in  place  of  gleukos,  indicates  that  it  was 
real  wine.  If  St.  John  meant  fresh  grape-juice, 
why  did  he  not  use  the  proper  word  for  fresh 
grape-juice!  Why  did  he  use  the  word  that  regu- 
larly in  Greek  literature  means  the  fermented 
article?  And  that  in  the  many  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  which  we  have  examined  means 
the  fermented  article?  And  that  St.  Paul  used 
when  he  said,  ' '  Be  not  drunk  with  oinos,  wherein 
is  excess"? 

Secondly,  the  Vulgate,  or  Latin  translation, 
renders  this  oinos  by  vinum.  Now  vinum  means 
fermented  wine ;  whereas  the  invariable  word  for 
unfermented  grape-juice  is  mustum;  whence  our 
*'must". 


THE  GOSPELS  79 

Thirdly,  examine  the  remark  of  the  governor 
of  the  feast,  in  verse  10,  to  the  bridegroom: 
"Every  man  setteth  on  first  the  good  wine;  and, 
when  men  have  drunk  freely,  then  that  which  is 
worse:  thou  hast  kept  the  good  wine  until  now". 

Calvin  takes  it  for  granted  that  it  was  fer- 
mented wine :  ' '  When  God  daily  gives  us  a  large 
supply  of  wine,  it  is  our  own  fault  if  his  kindness 
is  an  incitement  to  luxury;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  an  undoubted  trial  of  our  sobriety,  if 
we  are  sparing  and  moderate  in  the  midst  of 
abundance". — Calvin,  Com.  on  St.  John,  2.1-11. 

The  critical  word  in  this  remark  of  the  governor 
of  the  feast  is  that  which  is  here  rendered  ''have 
drunk  freely".  The  Greek  verb  used  means,  in 
the  active,  "to  make  drunk",  and,  in  the  passive, 
"to  get  drunk".  This  is  its  almost  universal 
meaning  in  classic  Greek;  and  Thayer's  Greek- 
English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  gives  this 
as  the  sole  meaning  in  the  New  Testament  and  the 
Septuagint.  It  is  the  verb  used  in  Luke  12.45: 
"Shall  begin  to  eat  and  drink  and  to  he  drunken''; 
in  1  Thes.  5.7:  "They  that  are  drunken  are 
drunken  in  the  night";  in  Eph.  5.18:  "Be  not 
drunken  with  wine";  in  Eev.  17.2:  "They  that 
dwell  in  the  earth  were  made  drunken  with  the 
wine  of  her  fornication";  and  this  is  the  sense 
that  Thayer  gives  to  the  verb  in  the  passage  we 
are  examining,  John  2.10.  The  same  verb  in  Jesus 
ben  Sirach,  1.16,  means  to  intoxicate  in  a  figura- 
tive sense:  "[Wisdom]  satiateth  [intoxicates] 
men  with  her  fruits".  The  Vulgate  for  St.  John 
2.10  is,  "cum  inebriati  fuerint",  "when  they  have 


80  THE  BIBLE 

become  inebriated".  The  Arabic  version  of  Ta- 
tian's  Diatessaron  here  is,  in  literal  English,  ''at 
the  time  of  drunkenness".  Luther's  German 
Bible  gives,  ''Wenn  sie  trunken  geworden  sind". 
The  French,  like  the  later  English  Versions,  is 
too  fine  for  the  bluntness  of  God's  Word,  and 
softens  it  down.  But  Wiclif  translated  the  pas- 
sage thus,  ''Whanne  men  ben  fulfilled";  and  both 
Tyndall  and  Cranmer  render  it,  "When  men  be 
dronke".  Dean  Henry  Alford,  in  his  translation 
of  the  New  Testament,  renders  it,  "When  men 
are  drunken";  and  Samuel  Davidson's  translation 
of  Tischendorf 's  text  of  the  New  Testament  makes 
this  passage,  "When  they  have  become  drunk". 
Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  under  Pood,  in 
discussing  oinos,  wine,  alludes  to  this  very  pas- 
sage as  showing  the  intoxicating  power  of  oinos : 
"This  wine  in  excess  produced  methysis"  [intox- 
ication] (John  2.10). 

Eead  what  the  famous  scholar  and  professor, 
Eev.  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  (Presbyterian),  New  York,  says  of  this 
passage,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment: 

"An  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  soften  down 
an  expression  used  by  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  'when 
men  are  drunken'.  There  need,  however,  be  no 
scruple  as  to  giving  the  word  its  ordinary  mean- 
ing. The  remark  does  but  express  his  surprise 
at  the  bridegroom's  departure  from  the  ordinary 
custom,  in  bringing  in  so  late  wine  of  such  excel- 
lence as  this.  The  common  maxim  was  that  the 
best  wine  should  be  given  first,  when  it  could  be 


THE  GOSPELS  81 

appreciated  by  the  guests;  tlie  weak  and  poorer 
when  they  had  drunk  more  than  enough,  and  the 
edge  of  their  taste  was  blunted". 

The  remark  of  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  then,  was 
a  piece  of  coarse  wit ;  which  is  decorously  slurred 
over  in  our  English  translations.  What  he  really 
said  was  that  men  are  apt  to  give  the  good  wine 
first,  and  then,  when  the  guests  are  pretty  drunk, 
and  don't  know  the  difference,  he  foists  the  poor 
wine  on  them, — a  procedure  which  in  this  feast 
the  bridegroom  had  reversed,  keeping  the  best 
wine  until  the  last.  In  this  remark  the  governor 
of  the  feast  was  only  doing  his  best  to  fill  his 
role  of  fun-maker  and  comedian.  He  was  expected 
to  keep  everything  moving,  to  make  everybody  feel 
at  home,  to  crack  jokes, — in  a  word,  to  be  a  good 
entertainer,  "master  of  the  revels".  Professional 
fun-makers  were  no  more  fastidious  then  than 
now :  they  were  as  apt  to  be  coarse  and  vulgar. 

In  this  case,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  remark  about  the  want  of  discernment  in  men 
who  were  pretty  drunk  was  meant  to  apply  to 
any  one  present :  it  was  just  a  general  pleasantry, 
of  a  sort  that  even  today  would  raise  a  laugh. 
That,  however,  on  such,  occasions,  even  well-known 
rabbis  sometimes  drank  too  freely,  we  learn  from 
Rabbinical  literature.  The  Jews,  as  a  rule,  were 
temperate;  but,  on  occasions,  a  little  license  was 
looked  on  as  a  venial  offence. 

It  is  certain,  then,  that  the  "governor  of  the 
feast"  was  speaking  of  alcoholic  wine,  when  he 
complimented  the  bridegroom  on  the  excellence  of 
that  which  had  just  been  offered  him  and  the 


82  THE  BIBLE 

guests.  It  is  easy  to  picture  his  consternation,  had 
anyone,  toward  the  end  of  a  feast  of  real  wine, 
presented  him  with  a  bowl  of  unfermented  grape- 
juice!  He  would  probably  have  viewed  it  as  a 
reflection  on  his  condition. 

The  wine,  then,  that  our  Lord  miraculously 
created  at  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana  of  Galilee 
was  alcoholic  wine  of  the  highest  excellence, — a 
wine  that,  drunk  too  freely,  would  intoxicate. 
When  Christ  arrived  at  the  marriage  feast,  he 
might  have  converted  the  wine  he  saw  there  into 
water.  Instead,  when  the  supply  gave  out,  he 
converted  the  water  into  wine.  Undoubtedly,  on 
this  occasion,  he  drank  himself,  with  his  disciples, 
with  his  mother,  and  the  other  guests.  Jesus,  his 
mother  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  his  chosen 
disciples,  all  drank ;  and  indeed  commentators  ex- 
plain the  embarrassing  shortage  of  wine  by  the 
unexpected  addition  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples, 
seven  guests,  to  the  party  already  gathered  (See 
Westcott's  St.  John).  This  made  it  the  more  nat- 
ural to  apply  to  Jesus  for  help  in  the  difficulty. 

The  word  wine  in  this  passage,  then,  as  in  every 
other  that  we  have  examined,  means  the  fer- 
mented, alcoholic  beverage. 

V 

The  Lord's  Supper. — And  now  we  come  to  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Was  wine,  fer- 
mented wine,  used  in  it  or  not? 

The  story  is  told  by  St.  Matthew,  26.26-29 ;  St. 
Mark,  14.22-25;  St.  Luke,  22.19-20.  St.  Matthew's 
account  is  the  fullest,  and  is  as  foUows: 


THE  GOSPELS  83 

And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and 
blessed,  and  brake  it;  and  he  gave  to  the  disciples, 
and  said.  Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took 
a  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  say- 
ing. Drink  ye  all  of  it;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many  unto  re- 
mission of  sins.  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  shall  not 
drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until 
that  day  ivhen  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  my 
Father's  kingdom. 

Both  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  use  this  same  term, 
"fruit  of  the  vine",  for  the  beverage  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  word  wine  does  not  appear  in  any 
of  the  accounts. 

This  feast  was,  in  its  early  part,  the  Passover 
Supper;  and  the  bread  and  drink  consecrated  to 
the  new  use  were  the  bread  and  the  drink  provided 
for  the  Passover.  The  bread  was  the  common 
bread  without  the  leaven,  that  is,  without  yeast. 
The  "fruit  of  the  vine"  was  what? 

The  Passover  supper  was  minutely  prescribed 
in  all  its  materials  and  ritual  acts.  All  these,  with 
one  exception,  were  intended  vividly  to  recall  that 
never-to-be-forgotten  night  "when  Israel  came  out 
of  Eg^jTpt,  and  the  house  of  Jacob  from  among  the 
strange  people"  (Ps.  114.1,  Prayer  Book);  and, 
with  this  one  exception,  they  were  all  ordained  in 
the  Law  of  Moses.  There,  in  Exodus  12,  the  law 
of  unleavened  bread  is  laid  down,  and  the  reason 
for  it  given.  On  "that  night  of  Jehovah"  "the 
Egyptians  were  urgent  upon  the  people,  to  send 
them  out  of  the  land  in  haste;  for  they  said.  We 
are  all  dead  men.    And  the  people  took  their  dough 


84  THE  BIBLE 

before  it  was  leavened,  their  kneading-trouglis  be- 
ing bound  up  in  their  clothes  upon  their 
shoulders. "  .  .  .  "  And  they  baked  unleavened 
cakes  of  the  dough  which  they  brought  forth  out 
of  Egypt;  for  it  was  not  leavened,  because  they 
were  thrust  out  of  Egypt,  and  could  not  tarry, 
neither  had  they  prepared  for  themselves  any 
victuals"  (Ex.  12.33,  34,  39).  In  accordance  with 
this  ordinance  the  children  of  Israel,  in  their  Pass- 
over, banish  leaven,  and  eat  unleavened  bread 
only,  to  this  very  day.  The  original  reason  for 
unleavened  bread  could  not  be  made  plainer :  the 
bread  was  not  leavened,  because  they  were  thrust 
out  of  Egypt,  and  could  not  tarry  to  leaven  it. 
It  takes  time  for  bread  to  "rise";  and  the  He- 
brews had  not  a  minute  to  spare ;  Pharaoh  might 
change  his  mind,  as  he  had  before;  so  ''they  took 
their  dough  before  it  was  leavened".  This  is 
amply  confirmed  in  Deuteronomy,  16.3:  "Thou 
shalt  eat  no  leavened  bread  with  it;  seven  days 
shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread  therewith,  even 
the  bread  of  affliction;  for  thou  camest  forth  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  haste:  that  thou  mayest 
remember  the  day  when  thou  camest  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt  all  the  days  of  thy  life".  It 
was  not,  then,  that  there  was  anything  wrong  in 
leaven  or  praiseworthy  in  bread  without  leaven. 
How  could  there  be?  Leavened  bread  was  the 
ordinary  food  of  the  people ;  and  unleavened  bread 
is  here  called  "the  bread  of  affliction".  After- 
wards leaven  was  excluded  from  the  sacrifices  be- 
cause the  idea  of  fermentation  and  decay  came  to 
be  associated  with  it;  and  this  idea  was  strong 


THE  GOSPELS  85 

in  the  New  Testament,  thougli  even  here  we  have 
''the  little  leaven  that  leaveneth  the  whole  lump" 
nsed  to  figure  the  power  of  the  Gospel.  But, 
however  that  may  be,  the  unleavened  bread  of  the 
Passover  is  explained  as  clearly  as  words  can  by 
the  want  of  time  to  leaven  the  bread  in  the  hurry 
of  the  exodus  from  Egypt. 

The  Jewish  people  have  always  taken  this  view, 
as  a  matter  of  course.  In  the  service  for  the 
Eve  of  Passover,  a  service  of  immemorial  an- 
tiquity, after  the  first  cup  of  wine,  the  Reader, 
"partly  removing  the  cover  from  the  unleavened 
bread,  continues", 

"Behold,  0  friends,  the  meagre  bread 
Our  fathers  ate  in  fear  and  dread"  etc. 

There  is  no  exaltation  of  unleavened  bread  here, 
as  being  purer  or  better;  it  is  "meagre  bread", 
eaten  originally  "in  fear  and  dread". 

Then  ' '  one  of  the  younger  members  of  the  fam- 
ily will  ask  these  questions  (in  accordance  with 
Ex.  12.26,  'And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  your 
children  shall  say  unto  you.  What  mean  ye  by  this 
service?  that  ye  shall  say'  etc.) :  'What  is  the 
meaning  of  the  unleavened  bread? '  "  To  which 
the  Reader:  "This  custom  is  intended  to  remind 
us  of  the  memorable  fact  that  our  fathers  in 
Egypt  were  driven  from  the  country  with  such 
haste  by  their  former  tormentors  that  they  not 
even  had  time  to  leaven  the  bread  for  their 
journey". 

Scripture  and  tradition  thus  concur  in  explain- 
ing the  want  of  leaven  in  the  Passover  bread  as 


86  THE  BIBLE 

a  misfortune  due  to  the  lack  of  time  to  use  yeast. 
There  was  no  objection  to  leaven  in  itself. 

Of  the  other  articles  prescribed  by  the  law  of 
Moses  to  be  eaten  at  the  Passover,  the  lamb  and 
the  bitter  herbs,  nothing  need  be  said. 

Of  the  beverage  it  is  different.  Long  before 
Christ  wine  was  a  prescribed  feature  of  this  feast. 
The  ritual  fixed  the  number  of  cups  to  be  drunk; 
it  told  just  at  what  points  in  the  service  they  were 
to  be  drunk ;  it  required  that  the  wine  be  red,  and 
that  it  be  mixed  with  water.  Yet  there  is  not  a 
word  about  wine  or  any  other  drink  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  Moses.  The  wine  was  an  addition.  Each 
of  the  company  must  be  provided  with  at  least 
four  cups  of  red  wine,  even  if  the  money  had  to 
come  from  the  fund  for  public  charity  or  was 
raised  by  the  pledging  of  one's  garments  or  of 
one's  labor.  The  reason  for  mixing  the  wine  with 
water  was  that,  unmixed,  it  was  too  strong,  and 
there  was  more  danger  of  intoxication.  The  ben- 
ediction could  not  be  said  over  the  cup  till  it  had 
been  mixed.  Additional  mixed  wine  could  be 
drunk  between  the  second  and  third  cups,  but  not 
between  the  third  and  fourth.  This  curious  dis- 
tinction had  a  reason:  between  the  second  and 
third  cups  the  eating  was  going  on,  and  it  was  be- 
lieved that  people  were  not  apt  to  overdrink  while 
eating;  but  the  eating  ceased  at  the  ceremonial 
drinking  of  the  third  cup,  and  ''wine  after  meat 
maketh  a  man  drunk". 

The  want  of  Scriptural  authority  or  precedent 
for  wine  in  the  Passover  Supper  explains  the  ab- 
sence of  any  inquiry  as  to  its  symbolical  meaning 


THE  GOSPELS  87 

by  "one  of  the  younger  members  of  the  family". 
The  bread  is  inquired  about ;  the  bitter  herbs  are 
inquired  about;  the  Passover  sacrifice  is  inquired 
about;  for  all  these  had  their  reason  in  the  events 
of  that  great  night.  But  it  is  not  asked,  What  is 
the  meaning  of  the  wine?  for  that  was  added  by 
the  Jewish  church  just  for  the  innocent  pleasure 
that  it  gave. 

Another  thing.  The  fermentation  of  yeast  and 
of  wine  is  chemically  the  same.  But,  first,  the 
ancients  did  not  know  this ;  and,  secondly,  if  they 
had,  it  would  not  have  made  any  difference  in 
this  instance.  The  Jews  of  today  know  it,  but 
they  drink  fermented  wine  in  their  Passover 
Supper.  The  Jews  of  the  Scriptures  were  careful 
to  search  out  and  destroy  every  particle  of 
leavened  bread  before  the  Passover  began;  but 
they  did  not,  any  more  than  today,  banish  fer- 
mented wine.  There  is  no  hint  of  any  such  thing. 
On  the  contrary,  well-to-do  Jews  gave  money  to 
their  destitute  brethren  to  purchase  wine  and 
other  Passover  materials,  so  that  every  one  might 
share  in  the  national  feast.  This  they  do  today; 
and  the  raising  of  this  Passover  fund  is  an  im- 
portant feature  of  synagogue  life  every  year. 

Was  this  wine  of  the  Passover  fermented?  The 
presumption  is  that  the  wine  was  of  the  character 
designated  by  the  same  terms  elsewhere.  Now 
our  examination  of  the  Old  Testament  shows  that 
yayin  was  always  fermented,  and  tirosh  almost 
always.  The  juice  of  the  grape  was  tirosh  from 
the  moment  it  was  expressed  till  it  became  fully 
fermented,  and  then  it  was  yayin.    Moreover,  the 


88  THE  BIBLE 

wine  of  the  Passover  was  red.  But  the  redness 
of  wine  comes  from  the  pigment  in  the  skin  of 
the  grape  when  fermented.  Moreover,  the  wine 
must  be  mixed  with  water  on  the  express  ground 
that  it  was  less  liable  to  intoxicate.  And,  lastly, 
the  Passover,  came  half  a  year  after  the  grape 
harvest ;  and  there  is  not  a  hint  in  the  Rabbinical 
literature,  let  alone  in  the  Old  Testament,  that 
the  Jews  ever  employed  any  device  to  keep  the 
juice  from  fermenting. 

The  testimony  of  learned  Jews  is  unanimous 
that  the  ordinary  wine  of  the  Passover  was  the 
fully  fermented  juice  of  the  grape,  red,  and  mixed 
with  water;  of  Jewish,  not  Gentile,  make.  These 
scholars  fix  no  date  for  the  introduction  of  wine 
into  the  Passover  feast ;  they  all  refer  it  to  a  time 
so  long  before  Christ  that  the  memory  of  man 
knows  no  beginning  of  it.  A  learned  Jew  of  ITew 
York  writes:  ''The  rabbinic  tradition  ascribes  it 
to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Assembly,  who  flourished 
about  400  B.  C.  But  there  is  no  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  this  tradition".  Professor  Caspar 
Levias,  Superintendent  of  the  Plant  Memorial 
Hebrew  Free  School,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  writes  the 
following  interesting  letter  on  the  subject  of  the 
ancient  Jewish  wines: 

"In  reply  to  your  inquiries,  I  beg  to  say  that — 

"1.  The  wine  at  the  Passover  supper  does  not 
differ  from  the  wine  on  Sabbaths  and  other  holi- 
days. It  is  used  in  consequence  of  a  law,  whose 
origin  and  antiquity  is  unknown,  to  sanctify  the 
holidays. 

' '  2.  The  term, ' '  fruit  of  the  vine ' ',  is  used  in  the 


THE  GOSPELS  89 

benediction  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  nonn 
wine  may  in  Hebrew  be  used  also  for  other  bev- 
erages, as  date-wine,  cider,  etc.  Since  the  sanctiti- 
cation  is  done  by  grape-wine,  the  term  "fruit  of 
the  vine"  is  the  proper  expression.  The  second 
reason  for  the  term  is  that  wine  is  an  artificial 
product,  for  which  God  could  not  be  thanked  di- 
rectly. 

"3.  All  wine  used  for  religious  ceremonies  is 
called  yayin,  that  is,  fermented  wine,  and  none 
other.  It  must  be  added  that  the  ancients  usually 
drank  their  wine  mixed  with  water,  from  one- 
third  to  two-thirds.  There  is  no  reason  to  assume 
that  matters  were  different  in  the  times  of  Jesus. 
In  fact,  the  use  of  unfermented  wine  is  never 
mentioned  in  the  Bible.  Already  Melchizedeck 
uses,  in  what  is,  no  doubt,  a  religious  ceremony, 
bread  and  wine.  Libation  required  yayin,  fer- 
mented wine. 

"4.  In  the  Bible  the  term  tirosh  does  not  mean 
''unfermented  wine"  in  the  modern  sense,  but  the 
''raw  product  from  which  wine  is  manufactured", 
just  as  yitshar  means  the  "raw  product  from 
which  oil  is  manufactured".  In  Talmudic  usage 
tirosh  includes  all  kinds  of  sweet  juices  and  must. 
Special  preservation  of  unfermented  wine  is  no- 
where mentioned  in  rabbinic  literature. 

"5.  The  Aramaic  name  for  wine  is  hamra.  This 
is  the  only  word  for  it  in  all  Aramaic  languages 
at  all  periods,  and  means  "fermented". 

"6.  The  only  rule  for  Passover  wine  is  that  it 
be  made  in  vessels  which  are  clean  from  chamets, 
leaven.  c.  levias". 


90  THE  BIBLE 

The  following  letter,  also,  in  answer  to  like 
inquiries  of  mine,  from  Rabbi  B.  Hailperin,  Chief 
Eabbi  of  the  Orthodox  Hebrews  of  Newark,  New 
Jersey,  is  full  of  curious  learning  that  is  instruc- 
tive for  our  subject. 

"To  answer  your  queries  seriatim: — 

"1.  Reason  for  the  use  of  wine  at  the  Passover 
Supper: — The  Talmud  states  (Berachoth  35  A) 
that  'whenever  we  render  praise  unto  the  Lord, 
we  must  have  wine  accompanying  it'.  The  reason 
is  inferred  from  the  sentence  (Judges  LX.  13), 
'Wine  rejoiceth  God  and  man'.  That  it  rejoiceth 
man  we  know,  for  the  Psalmist  states  (Ps.  CIV. 
15)  'Wine  rejoiceth  the  heart  of  man'.  But  how 
could  it  be  instrumental  in  bringing  gladness  unto 
God?  By  using  wine  in  connection  with  our 
praises  and  exaltations  uttered  unto  the  glory  of 
the  Lord. 

''Consequently  it  has  been  made  a  law  that 
every  Jew  must  use  wine  with  every  manifesta- 
tion of  praise  and  thanksgiving  rendered  unto 
his  Maker.  That  the  Jew  has  faithfully  clung 
unto  this  law  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  wine 
is  used  at  the  following  occasions: 

a.  Rite  of  circumcision. — After  the  operation 
has  been  performed,  the  usual  prayer  is  pro- 
nounced over  wine. 

b.  Redemption  of  the  first-born. — This  cere- 
mony, done  in  accordance  with  the  Law  (Ex.  XIIL 
13),  is  also  marked  by  the  use  of  wine. 

c.  Marriage  ceremony. — The  minister  recites 
the  seven  blessings,  while  holding  a  cup  of  wine 
in  his  hands. 


THE  GOSPELS  91 

d.  'Kiddush'. — This  beautiful  and  impressive 
home  service,  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath 
and  holidays,  is  ushered  in  with  a  blessing  over 
the  'fruit  of  the  vine'.  The  Talmud  says 
(Pesachim  106  B),  'Remember  the  Sabbath  day, 
remember  it  with  wine'. 

e.  'Habdallah'. — The  benediction  which  marks 
the  termination  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  holiday 
is  also  delivered  with  the  usual  cup  of  wine. 

f.  Having  proved  the  application  of  the  law, — 
that  no  praise  should  be  rendered  without  wine, — 
let  us  consider  the  use  of  four  cups  of  wine  at 
the  Passover,  or  Seder,  service. 

"The  Talmud  states  (Talmud  Jerusalem, 
Pesachim,  Tractate  10,  Halacha  I.;  also  Midrash 
Rabba,  Parshah  88),  that  on  Passover  we  are  to 
praise  the  Lord  four  times,  because  God  speaks 
of  our  redemption  in  four  different  terms ;  which 
signify  that  our  freedom  was  a  four-fold  one. 
For  we  read  (Exodus  VL  6-7),  'Wlierefore  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  am  the  Lord,  and  I 
will  bring  you  out  from  the  burdens  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  I  will  rid  you  of  their  bondage,  and  I 
will  redeem  you  with  a  stretched-out  arm,  and  with 
great  judgment,  and  I  will  take  you  to  me'. 

"The  terms  'bring  you  out',  'rid  you',  'redeem 
you',  and  'take  you'  are  four  different  expres- 
sions applied  to  the  redemption  of  Israel  from 
Egyptian  bondage.  Consequently,  that  redemp- 
tion was  a  four-fold  one.  In  consideration  there- 
for we  manifest  our  gratitude  to  our  Redeemer 
in  th^  same  measure  as  He  once  bestowed  his 
kindness  upon  us;  namely,  with  four   different 


92  THE  BIBLE 

praises.  And,  as  no  praise  should  be  rendered 
without  wine,  so  we  must,  in  accordance  with  the 
law,  have  four  cups  of  wine  at  the  commemoration 
of  the  delivery  from  Egypt.  The  Talmud,  there- 
fore, states  (Pesochim  108)  that  every  person 
must  have  four  cups  of  wine  for  the  Seder  ser- 
vice; and,  if  he  cannot  afford  to  buy  it,  he  is  to 
be  supplied  with  wine  from  the  Passover  Relief 
Fund,  a  charitable  institution  which  serves  the 
purpose  of  providing  Passover  victuals  for  the 
poor  of  the  community. 

"2.  The  benediction  over  wine: — In  making  the 
benediction  over  anything  we  are  about  to  eat, 
we  do  not  mention  the  name  of  the  thing  actually 
eaten,  but  rather  use  the  expression  'the  fruit  of, 
etc.  For  instance,  upon  eating  an  apple,  the  bless- 
ing is  'over  the  fruit  of  the  tree';  upon  partaking 
of  a  potato,  the  blessing  is  over  'the  fruit  of  the 
ground'.  But,  as  the  vine  was  considered  supe- 
rior to  all  trees,  a  special  blessing  is  accorded  to 
its  product,  namely,  'the  fruit  of  the  vine' 
(gefen). 

"Thus  far,  I  have  given  you  the  Talmudic  law 
on  the  matter.  My  personal  opinion  is  that  spe- 
cial benedictions  have  been  ordered  for  bread  and 
for  wine,  because  in  those  days  bread  and  wine 
were  considered  the  necessaries  of  life.  Thus  we 
find  (Genesis  XIV.  18)  that  ' Melchizedek,  king 
of  Salem,  met  Abraham  with  bread  and  wine',  ap- 
parently the  most  important  food-stuffs  of  that 
day. 

"3.  Is  grape- juice  used  for  Passover  I 

"The  Jews  have  always  used  fermented,  strong 


THE  GOSPELS  93 

wine,  equal  to  the  one  used  upon  the  Altar,  as 
we  find  (Numbers  XXVIII.  7),  'Thou  shalt  cause 
the  strong  wine  to  be  poured  unto  the  Lord  for  a 
drink-offering'.  The  Talmud  tells  (Nedarim 
4:9.B)  of  a  prominent  woman  who  once  reproached 
Eabbi  Judah  for  being  extremely  red  in  face,  a 
fact  which  she  attributed  to  his  excessive  drink- 
ing. The  Eabbi  replied,  'I  never  drink  any  wine 
but  to  Kiddush  and  to  Habdallah,  and,  when  Pass- 
over comes  around,  I  drink  the  four  cups  of  wine, 
and  I  become  so  severely  affected  that  my  head 
aches  for  seven  weeks,  until  Shebbuoth'.  Surely 
had  grape-juice  answered  the  purpose,  the  re- 
nowned rabbi  would  not  have  hazarded  his  health 
by  drinking  strong  wine.  We  must,  therefore, 
conclude  that  it  was  a  law  of  binding  force  that 
induced  the  rabbi  to  sacrifice  his  health,  in  order 
to  prove  his  adherence  to  the  law. 

*'4.  Preserving  the  grape- juice: — To  my  knowl- 
edge, the  preservation  of  grape-juice  and  prevent- 
ing it  from  becoming  fermented  is  nowhere  men- 
tioned in  Eabbinical  literature. 

*'5.  Present-day  rule  for  Passover  wine: — The 
following  rules  are  usually  complied  with: — 

(a)  It  shall  be  good  strong  wine  (the  reason 
being  stated  above) ;  (b)  it  shall  be  red,  for  the 
Talmud  states  (Baba  Bathra  97  B)  'that  red 
wine  is  the  best  of  its  kind',  inferring  it  from 
Proverbs  XXm.  31, '  Look  not  thou  upon  the  wine 
when  it  is  red';  which  signifies  the  superiority  of 
that  color. 

Eabbi   B.    Hailperin, 
Chief  Rabbi  Orthodox  Hebrews  of  Newark/' 


94  THE  BIBLE 

The  use  of  the  term  ''fruit  of  the  vme"  is  ex- 
plained in  much  the  same  way  by  all  the  scholars 
that  I  have  consulted.  First,  this  term  is  free 
from  the  ambiguity  of  yayin,  which  may,  in  this 
later  use,  mean  wine  made  from  other  than  grapes. 
Second,  it  is  preferred  to  the  word  yayin,  in  the 
Benediction,  because,  in  strictness,  God  gives  the 
natural,  not  the  artificial,  product, — grape  juice, 
not  made  wine.  The  force  of  this  reason,  however, 
is  weakened  by  the  circumstance  that  in  the  Bene- 
diction on  the  bread,  in  the  Passover  Service,  the 
word  "bread"  is  used,  not  grain:  "Praise  be  to 
Thee,  Eternal,  >our  God,  Lord  of  the  universe, 
who  makest  bread  to  grow  out  of  the  earth". 
But  as  to  the  force  of  this  expression,  "fruit  of 
the  vine", — whatever  its  explanation, — there  has 
never  been  any  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
Jews;  and,  in  this.  Christian  scholars  have  been 
at  one  with  the  Jewish:  church  and  synagogue 
have,  from  the  beginning,  understood  "the  fruit 
of  the  vine"  to  be  fully  fermented  wine.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  the  brilliant  scholar,  Dr.  Alfred 
Edersheim,  perhaps  the  most  learned  Jew  in  the 
antiquities  of  his  people  that  has  espoused  Chris- 
tianity in  centuries,  in  his  "Life  and  Times  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah",  dismisses  the  suggestion  that 
the  wine  of  the  Passover  was  unfermented  with 
contempt:  "The  contention  that  it  was  unfer- 
mented wine  is  not  worth  serious  discussion" 
(Note  2,  page  485,  vol.  II.).  The  Anglican  divine, 
Dr.  Cunningham  Geikie,  in  his  "Life  of  Christ", 
assumes,  as  not  requiring  demonstration,  that  the 
wine  used  by  our  Lord,  at  this  feast,  was  the  usual 


THE  GOSPELS  95 

fermented  wine  of  the  grape :  "A  cup  of  red  wine, 
mingled  with  a  fourth  part  of  water,  to  make  it 
a  pleasant  and  temperate  drink".  In  discussing 
the  miracle  at  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana  of 
Galilee,  Dr.  Geikie  says  that  Jesus  thereby  sanc- 
tioned the  temperate  use  of  fermented  wine. 

The  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  of  Religious 
Knowledge,  3d  Edition,  under  the  article  "Wine", 
speaks  as  follows  of  this  term,  "fruit  of  the  vine" : 
' '  The  fruit  of  the  vine  is  literally  the  grape.  But 
the  Jews  from  time  immemorial  have  used  this 
phrase  to  designate  the  wine  partaken  of  on  sacred 
occasions,  as  at  the  Passover  and  at  the  eve  of 
the  Sabbath.  The  Mislina  expressly  states  that 
in  pronouncing  blessings  'the  fruit  of  the  vine'  is 
the  consecrated  expression  for  yayin.  . 
How  naturally  the  phrase  'the  fruit  of  the  vine' 
is  put  for  wine  is  seen  from  Herodotus  (Book 
1.212),  where  Tomyris,  the  Queen  of  the  Massage- 
tae,  is  made  to  employ  the  three  expressions,  'the 
fruit  of  the  vine'  ...  to  denote  the  wine 
by  which  a  part  of  her  army  was  so  intoxicated 
as  to  fall  an  easy  prey  to  Cyrus.  Wine  is  not 
whiskey,  but  compare  the  phrase  'old  rye'  for  the 
latter.  .  .  .  Our  Lord,  in  instituting  the  Sup- 
per after  the  Passover,  availed  himself  of  the 
expression  invariably  employed  by  his  country- 
men in  speaking  of  the  wine  of  the  Passover". 

It  is  worth  while  to  call  attention  here  to  Dean 
Stanley's  conjecture  (Christian  Institutions, 
Chapter  II.)  as  to  the  "upper  room",  in  which 
the  Supper  was  held:  "They  were  collected  to- 
gether   ...    in  one  of  the  large  upper  rooms 


96  THE  BIBLE 

above  the  open  court  of  the  inn,  or  caravanserai, 
to  which  they  had  been  guided".  The  very  pos- 
sible location  of  the  banqueting  apartment  over  a 
wine-room,  as  indicated  by  the  Dean,  is  worthy  of 
mention,  owing  to  the  naturalness  of  this  in 
Palestine  and  among  the  Jewish  people.  All  sorts 
of  religious  rites  are  celebrated  by  Jews  in  just 
such  places  today  in  our  large  cities,  the  wine- 
room  not  having  with  them  offensive  associations. 
A  friend  tells  me,  ''Till  recent  years  this  was 
Anglo-Saxon  Christian  usage  as  well.  As  a  boy, 
I  attended  meetings  of  the  Church  Missionary 
Society  in  the  Assembly  Room  over  the  Free- 
masons' Tavern,  a  leading  public  house  adjoining 
our  London  parish  of  St.  John's  Battersea".  If 
Dean  Stanley's  conjecture  is  correct,  the  wine  of 
the  Last  Supper  was  probably  bought  from  the 
wine-room  below. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   EPISTLES 

Thus  it  is  certain  that  the  beverage  used  in  the 
Last  Supper  was  fermented  wine,  a  fact  that  was 
never  questioned  through  all  the  ages,  and  that  is 
questioned  by  no  scholar  of  standing  now.  Jesus 
drank  alcoholic  wine,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples 
to  drink,  at  that  Passover  Supper. 

In  instituting  the  new  feast,  "after  Supper", 
he  again  gave  the  same  wine  to  his  apostles.  He 
enjoined  them  all,  and  all  his  disciples,  till  his 
coming  again  at  the  Last  Day,  to  drink  of  it: 
"Drink  of  this,  all*  of  you". 


St.  Paul. — St.  Paul's  testimony  only  confirms 
what  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  makes  clear, 
— that  the  wine  of  the  Jews  and  first  Christians 
was  alcoholic.  From  his  pen  we  have  the  earliest 
account  of  the  instituting  of  the  Lord's  Supper; 
and  this  account  contains  the  earliest  recorded 
words  of  Jesus.  The  passage  occurs  in  the  course 
of  a  rebuke  to  the  Corinthian  church  for  miscon- 
duct in  connection  with  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
whole  passage,  1  Corinthians,  11,  beginning  with 
verse  20,  is  as  follows:  When  therefore  ye  as- 
semble yourselves  together,  it  is  not  possible  to 
eat  the  Lord's  supper:  for  in  your  eating  each  one 

*The  word  "all",  in  the  Greek,  is  in  the  most  emphatic  position. 

97 


98  THE  BIBLE 

taketh  before  other  his  own  supper;  and  one  is 
hungry,  and  another  is  drunken.  What,  have  ye 
not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  inf  or  despise  ye 
the  church  of  God,  and  put  them  to  shame  that 
have  not?  What  shall  I  say  to  you?  shall  I  praise 
you?  In  this  I  praise  you  not.  For  I  received  of 
the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed  took  bread;  and,  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  This  is  my  body, 
which  is  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
In  like  manner  also  the  cup,  after  supper,  saying. 
This  cup  is  the  neiv  covenant  in  my  blood:  this  do 
as  often  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me. 
For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the 
cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come. 
(This  last  sentence  is  thought  by  some  to  be 
Paul's,  not  Christ's.) 

Scholars  are  agreed  that  at  first,  and  for  some 
years,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  in  con- 
nection with  a  love-feast,  or  Agape.  Some  say 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  came  just  after ;  others,  just 
before ;  others,  that  the  love-feast  was  included  in 
the  Lord's  Supper.  This  passage  from  St.  Paul 
indicates  that  in  Corinth  at  that  time  it  came  after. 
To  the  Agape  everybody  that  could  brought  his 
contribution  of  food  and  drink,  for  all  to  share 
in  common  and  as  equals.  Naturally  the  well-to- 
do  brought  more  than  the  poor ;  and  naturally,  too, 
after  a  while,  they  began  to  flock  by  themselves, 
and  to  dine  off  their  own  palatable  contributions. 
This  had  reached  such  a  pass  in  Corinth,  when 
St.  Paul  wrote,  as  to  be  a  scandal :  some  surfeited 


THE  EPISTLES  99 

themselves;  others  did  not  have  enough  to  eat. 
Nay,  while  the  poor  did  not  even  have  enough 
bread,  the  rich  not  only  had  all  the  food  they  could 
eat,  but  they  kept  drinking  wine  till  they  were 
drunk:  One  is  hungry  and  another  drunken. 
This  was  a  shame  of  a  love-feast;  and  St.  Paul 
told  them  so.  Moreover,  this  debauch  left  them 
in  no  condition  of  soul  or  body  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper, — the  poor,  hungry  and  angry;  the 
rich,  stuffed  and  drunk:  truly  they  were  eating 
and  drinking  to  themselves  damnation. 

The  significant  word  for  us,  here,  is  ''drunk", 
— "some  are  drunk".  In  fact,  this  one  word  is 
sufficient  proof  that  the  wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  fermented.  For  this  reason  those  who  are 
set  on  having  it  unfermented  make  desperate  ef- 
forts to  break  the  force  of  this  word  "drunk". 
They  say  it  means,  instead,  gorged  (with  food), 
— "One  is  hungry,  another  is  gorged".  But  the 
consensus  of  authorities  is  against  them.  The 
Authorized  Version  gives  it,  "One  is  hungry,  and 
another  is  drunken".  The  Eevised  Versions,  Eng- 
lish and  American,  give  the  same.  Wiclif  has, 
"And  sothely  another  is  hungrie,  another  foresoth 
is  drunkyn";  Tyndale,  "And  one  is  hongrye,  and 
another  is  dronken";  Cranmer,  "One  is  hongry, 
and  another  is  droncken".  The  German  version 
is  the  same.  The  Eheims  has,  "One  certes  is  an 
hungred,  and  an  other  is  drunke".  Luther  has, 
"Einer  ist  hungrig,  der  Andere  trunken".  The 
Vulgate  uses  "ebrius",  that  is,  "inebriated". 
Moreover,  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the 
New  Testament  gives,  as  the  only  meaning  of  the 


100  THE  BIBLE 

Greek  verb  used'  by  St.  Paul,  methyo,  "to  be 
drunken";  and  it  refers  to  this  very  passage. 
Hastings'  International  Critical  Commentary  says 
of  this  passage  (the  volume  on  First  Corinthians 
is  by  Bishop  Archibald  Robertson,  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alfred  Plummer,  of 
Trinity  College,  Oxford), — "There  is  no  need  to 
water  down  the  usual  meaning  of  methyein. 
Hungry  poor  meeting  intoxicated  rich 
at  what  was  supposed  to  be  a  supper  of  the 
Lord!"  Principal  Edwards,  the  famous  Calvinis- 
tic  Methodist  theologian,  in  his  Commentary  on 
First  Corinthians,  says  of  this  passage,  "There 
can  be  but  little  doubt  that  Chrysostom  is  right  in 
giving  the  word  methyei  its  full  meaning:  'He 
does  not  say,  drink  to  satiety,  but  ^5  drunk'.  Long 
afterwards  Ambrose  was  compelled  to  forbid  the 
use  of  wine  at  festivals  held  in  honor  of  the 
martyrs,  because  it  led  to  revelry  and  drunken- 
ness". 

St.  Paul,  then,  charged  the  well-to-do  Corinthian 
Christians  with  getting  drunk  when  they  came  to- 
gether for  the  love-feast  and  sacrament.  The  wine 
provided  for  the  love-feast  was  the  same  as  for 
the  Lord's  Supper;  and  this  wine  was  alcoholic: 
they  got  drunk  on  it.  Now  let  us  see  how  St.  Paul 
met  this  shameful  situation. 

He  never  said  a  word  against  wine  at  the  love- 
feast  or  the  Lord's  Supper, — not  one  word.  What 
he  did  find  fault  with  was  the  well-to-do  people's 
drinking  it  all  up,  so  that  there  was  none  left  for 
the  poor.  He  blamed  them  for  not  sharing  their 
wine  and  food  with  those  who  had  none.    And  his 


THE  EPISTLES  101 

remedy  for  the  evil  was,  what  I  To  let  alcoholic 
wine  alone?  Not  at  all.  His  remedy  was  to  do 
their  eating  and  drinking  at  home,  if  they  were 
too  hungry  to  wait,  where  the  temptation  to  excess 
would  be  gone  or  lessened;  and  then  to  come  to- 
gether, their  appetites  satisfied,  to  eat  the  bread 
and  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord.  St.  Paul  not  only 
permits,  but  takes  for  granted,  as  if  the  question 
had  never  been  raised,  the  use  of  alcoholic  wine 
alike  in  the  social  love-feast  and  in  the  solemn 
sacrament.  And  as  to  the  latter  he  asserts  that  he 
delivered  to  them  only  that  which  he  had  himself 
received  of  the  Lord:  that  is,  his  claim  of  divine 
authority  covers  this  fermented  wine,  as  well  as 
the  bread,  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Therefore,  even  if  otherwise  inclined  to  it,  he 
would  not  have  dared  to  alter  what  his  Master  had 
prescribed.  But  he  did  not  feel  the  inclination; 
for,  where  he  was  free  to  forbid  real  wine,  that  is, 
at  the  love  feast,  concerning  which  Jesus  had 
given  no  commandment,  he  did  not  do  it.  What  he 
did  was  to  caution  them  about  the  love  feast: 
"You  have  homes:  eat  and  drink  there".  What 
he  hit  at  was  not  drinking,  any  more  than  eating; 
it  was  excess  and  disorder:  that  was  all.  Wliat 
he  aimed  at  was  temperance,  not  abstinence.  Had 
there  been  no  overeating  or  overdrinking  at  their 
love  feast,  but  moderation  and  kindly  considera- 
tion, he  would  have  had  nothing  to  say.  The 
wrong  was  in  the  intemperance  and  in  the  spirit 
behind  it. 

Now,  if  St.  Paul  cannot  be  trusted  on  this  mat- 
ter of  principal  importance,  he  cannot  be  trusted 


102  THE  BIBLE 

in  anything.  But,  if  he  is  trusted,  then  all  that 
has  been  said  about  the  wine  of  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  is  directly  or  inferentially  confirmed  by 
him.  If  fermented  wine  was  used  in  the  Apostolic 
church,  under  the  eye  of  the  chief  of  the  Apostles, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  then  the  fight  against  rec- 
ognizing it  everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament 
might  as  well  be  abandoned:  the  citadel  has  been 
captured.  Even  the  outrageous  misuse  and  excess 
of  alcoholic  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  did  not 
suggest  that  such  wine  should  be  banished,  and 
unfermented  grape-juice  substituted.  We  have 
here  as  aggravated  an  instance  of  the  danger  of 
wine,  even  for  sacred  uses,  as  can  be  conceived, 
— the  sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
turned  into  a  selfish  Bacchanalian  orgie;  and  yet 
St.  Paul  does  not  say,  "Abstain!"  He  only  says, 
**Be  temperate".  It  is  quite  possible  that  among 
these  sacrilegious  convivialists  may  have  been 
persons  unable  to  control  their  appetites,  when 
once  started, — the  very  situation  so  often  cited  for 
total  abstinence  today; — yet  St.  Paul  did  not  say 
to  Christians,  "Abstain!"  He  only  said,  "Avoid 
excess";  "Drink  at  home";  "Drink  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  proper  spirit". 

Observe,  finally,  in  the  passages  from  the  Epis- 
tles earlier  quoted,  to  show  the  alcoholic  nature 
of  their  oinos, — as  the  warning  to  bishops  not  to 
be  "quarrelsome  over  oinos"  (1  Tim.  3.3),  and 
to  elderly  women  not  to  be  "enslaved  to  much 
oinos"  (Titus  2.3), — that,  while  this  wine  can  in- 
toxicate, yet  it  is  not  prohibited.  St.  Paul  only 
warns  against  excess  ("much  wine")  and  against 


THE  EPISTLES  103 

quarreling  over  it  and  being  enslaved  to  it.  Like- 
wise the  drinking  that  St.  Peter  condemns  is  the 
excess  that  may  be  described  as  "  winebibbings ", 
and  which  has  its  place  in  this  evil  catalogue, — 
"lasciviousness,  lusts,  winebibbings,  revellings, 
carousings,  and  abominable  idolatries"  (1  Pet. 
4.3) :  in  a  word,  drinking  that  amounts  to  de- 
bauchery. The  moderate  drinking  of  self-respect- 
ing people,  whether  deacons,  bishops,  aged  women, 
or  the  ordinary  run  of  church-members,  is  not 
touched  by  these  prohibitions.  They  are  as  free 
to  drink  wine  (or  ^'strong  drink")  as  water. 

If  these  Apostles  had  disapproved  of  a  mod- 
erate use  of  wine,  why  did  they  express  themselves 
so  awkwardly  and  misleadingly?  They  could 
write  plainly  and  vigorously,  when  they  wished. 
Yet  any  teetotaler  of  today  puts  his  disapproval 
with  vastly  more  force  and  directness.  ''Touch 
not,  taste  not,  handle  not," — who  could  misunder- 
stand that?  Why  this  paltering  with  "excess" 
and  "quarrelsomeness"  and  "bibbings",  if  their 
meaning  was  really,  "Let  it  alone"?  When  St. 
Paul  meant  to  condemn  falsehood,  he  said,  "Lie 
not"  (Col.  3.9).  Why  did  he  not  say,  "Drink  not", 
if  that  was  what  he  meant?  Indeed,  to  condemn 
excess  is  to  admit  a  moderate  and  proper  use.  If  I 
say,  "Don't  dance  too  much",  I  allow  a  moderate 
amount  of  dancing.  But  will  I  say, ' '  Don't  gamble 
too  much"?  No;  I  say,  "Don't  gamble  at  all". 
If  I  warn  my  son,  leaving  his  home,  "Don't  get 
drunk  on  your  wine  and  strong  drink"  ("Be  not 
drunk  with  wine"),  I  tacitly  allow  any  use  short 
of  excess.    Are  we  to  believe  that  these  Apostles 


104  THE  BIBLE 

expressed  themselves  so  blunderingly  on  a  ques- 
tion of  morals  that  the  whole  world  misunderstood 
them,  in  fact  understood  them  to  mean  the  very 
contrary  of  what  they  did  mean,  for  1,800  years, 
and  almost  the  whole  world  so  misunderstands 
them  today  ?  And  that,  too,  when  they  were  under 
the  direct  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost? 

The  Apostolic  church,  then,  used  alcoholic  wine 
as  a  beverage ;  it  used  it  in  the  love  feast ;  it  used 
it  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  St.  Paul,  in  censuring 
the  abuses  that  had  grown  up  in  Corinth  in  con- 
nection with  the  Lord's  Supper,  does  not  reprove 
the  use  of  alcoholic  wine.  He  assumes,  as  though 
a  question  had  never  been  raised  even  in  his  own 
mind,  that  the  wine  used  in  the  Corinthian  churcb 
was  the  same  as  that  used  by  our  Lord  in  institut- 
ing the  sacrament ;  and  he  claims  knowledge  of  the 
sacrament  by  revelation  from  our  Lord  himself. 
This  attitude  of  his  toward  alcoholic  wine  is  ex- 
actly that  which,  on  other  evidence,  ample  and 
cumulative,  we  find  in  Jesus,  in  the  Jewish  church 
of  his  day,  in  Hebrew  history  from  the  beginning. 
They  all  agree  that  alcoholic  wine  is  a  joyful  and 
pleasant  thing,  for  which  a  special  benediction  is 
due  to  God ;  but  which,  must  be  religiously  guarded 
from  abuse. 

Plastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  II.  34-a,  thus  sums 
up  the  Bible  teaching  as  to  wine:  ''The  study  of 
the  names  applied  to  wine  shows  that  they  are, 
for  the  most  part,  evidently  synonyms,  and  that 
the  substance  indicated  by  them  all  was  one  which, 
if  used  to  excess,  was  liable  to  cause  intoxication. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  to  obtain  a  textual 


THE  EPISTLES  105 

support  for  total  abstinence  by  differentiating  in- 
toxicating from  unfermented  wine  in  the  biblical 
terminology;  but  it  is  only  special  pleading  with- 
out adequate  foundation.  The  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture as  to  the  pernicious  effects  of  intemperance 
in  any  form  is  clear  and  explicit,  and  the  Apostle 
Paul  has  stated  the  ease  for  total  abstinence  in 
Rom.  14  in  a  way  which  does  not  require  the 
treacherous  aid  of  doubtful  exegesis  for  its  sup- 
port". 

II 

But  what  of  this  teaching  of  St.  Paul's  as  to 
the  obligation  a  Christian  is  under  to  forego  his 
lawful  liberty  where  it  may  prove  a  stumbling- 
block  to  a  weak  brother!  Did  Paul  intend  by  this 
to  disallow  wine? 

In  the  light  of  the  hospitable  attitude  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  of  Jesus  toward  wine  the  ques- 
tion answers  itself.  St.  Paul  could  not  have  re- 
quired or  recommended  total  abstinence  as  a  uni- 
versal or  usual  practice  without  setting  up  a 
stricter  obligation  than  the  prophets  and  seers  of 
the  Old  Dispensation,  or  than  Jesus  himself.  It  is 
true  that  various  Christians  have  at  times  found 
Jesus  over-tolerant,  and  have  attempted  to  cor- 
rect his  laches, — as  indeed  the  rigorists  of  his  own 
day  did;  but  St.  Paul  was  not  one  of  them.  St. 
Paul  knew  that  Jesus  used  wine  himself;  that  he 
provided  it  for  others ;  and  that  he  commanded  his 
church  to  drink  it  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  till 
his  coming  again.  If  Jesus  saw  nothing  incon- 
sistent with  the  most  boundless  and  tender  charity 


106  THE  BIBLE 

in  his  use  of  wine,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
St.  Paul  did.  This  injunction  of  St.  Paul  was  not 
something  new,  any  more  than  his  injunction 
against  lying,  fornication,  or  theft.  He  was  only 
applying  to  a  particular  subject  a  principle  as  old 
as  Revelation. 

However,  though  the  question  answers  itself,  let 
us,  since  so  much  has  been  made  of  this  teaching, 
and  so  wrongly, — examine  it  from  other  angles. 
Did  St.  Paul,  then,  mean  to  enjoin  total  abstinence 
as  the  Christian  practice? 

Paul's  Weak  Brother. — ^^The  passages  in  point 
are  Rom.  14.  13,  15,  21;  1  Cor.  8.13: 

Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another,  any 
more:  hut  judge  ye  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  a 
stumhlinghlock  in  his  brother's  way,  or  an  occa- 
sion of  falling.  .  .  .  For,  if  because  of  rneat 
thy  brother  is  grieved,  thou  walkest  no  longer  in 
love.  Destroy  not  with  thy  meat  him  for  whom 
Christ  died.  .  .  .  It  is  good  not  to  eat  flesh, 
nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  do  anything  whereby  thy 
brother  stumbleth.  Wherefore,  if  meat  causeth 
my  brother  to  stumble,  I  will  eat  no  flesh  for  ever- 
more, that  I  cause  not  my  brother  to  stumble. 

Now,  first,  the  wine  of  these  passages  is  surely 
alcoholic,  since  the  danger  to  the  weak  brother 
in  unfermented  grape-juice  is  so  remote  and  so 
tenuous  as  not  to  be  worth  mentioning.  But  there 
is  nothing  to  differentiate  the  wine  that  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  here  from  the  wine  he  speaks  of  else- 
where, or  from  the  wine  that  other  New  Testament 
writers  speak  of;  which  is  a  further  confirmation 
of  the  alcoholic  character  of  New  Testament  wine. 


THE  EPISTLES  107 

Secondly,  those  who  rest  the  case  for  total  ab- 
stinence on  this  teaching  virtually  admit  that 
drinking  is  in  itself  right ;  for  this  teaching  applies 
only  to  things  lawful, — to  things  that  are  to  be 
given  up,  not  because  they  are  wrong,  but  because 
they  may  lead  a  weak  brother  to  offend.  No  one 
would  seek  to  dissuade  from  falsehood  and  theft 
on  this  principle:  these  are  wrong,  even  if  they 
caused  no  weak  brother  to  offend,  because  they 
are  wicked  in  themselves,  as  a  defiance  of  God :  the 
strong  brother  needs  this  sort  of  abstinence  as 
much  as  the  weak  one.  That  St.  Paul  recommends 
total  abstinence  when  wine  might  cause  the  weak 
brother  to  offend  is  evidence  enough  that  he  looked 
on  drinking  wine  as  he  did  on  eating  meat,  as  law- 
ful and  right, — the  one  as  lawful  and  right  as  the 
other, — and  both  to  be  abstained  from  under  the 
same  considerations  and  to  the  same  extent. 
Christians  surely  were  free  to  eat  meat,  as  they 
saw  fit:  yet  this  liberty,  if  unabridged,  might  cause 
a  weak  brother  to  offend  his  conscience  (however 
mistaken  that  conscience)  by  eating  meat  that  he 
knew  had  been  oif  ered  to  idols.  Again,  there  were 
vegetarian  societies  then,  and  long  before,  that 
made  it  a  matter  of  conscience  to  abstain  from 
meat.  There  were,  too,  the  Pythagoreans,  who, 
besides  abstaining  from  wine  and  meat,  made  it  a 
matter  of  conscience  to  abstain  from  beans,  ah- 
stinete  a  fdbis.  These  all,  even  though  not  Chris- 
tians, ought  to  be  regarded  by  Christians  in  the 
exercise  of  their  lawful  liberty:  these  weak 
brethren  must  not  be  caused  to  offend. 

Drinking,  then,  according  to  this  passage  may 


108  THE  BIBLE 

be  against  Christian  charity;  it  is  not  against 
Christian  law;  wrong  in  itself  it  is  not. 

Let  us  now  examine  this  principle  of  Christian 
charity. 

What  St.  Paul  had  in  mind,  indeed,  may  not 
have  been  the  peril  of  excess  or  of  appetite  at  all, 
but  rather  the  conscientious  scruple  against  par- 
ticular things,  or  particular  uses  of  things,  as  be- 
ing wrong  in  themselves.  Every  specification  and 
illustration  that  he  gives  points  this  way.  Some 
thought  it  wrong  to  eat  meat;  others,  to  drink 
wine;  others  to  use  certain  days  (perhaps  the  Sab- 
bath) as  common.  Others  thought  it  wrong  to 
eat  meat  that  had  been  offered  to  idols.  In  each 
instance,  they  conceived  the  wrong  in  the  thing 
itself,  not  in  an  immoderate  appetite  or  use.  It 
was,  therefore,  superstition  that  moved  these 
people,  not  a  reasonable  prudence.  It  was  not  a 
matter  of  fleshly  appetite,  but  of  mental  error; 
and  this  is  the  point  of  St.  Paul's  correction,  ''All 
things  indeed  are  clean".  We  know  that  wine, 
like  meat,  was  objected  to  on  this  ground,  for  St. 
Augustine  tells  us  (On  the  Morals  of  the  Mani- 
chaeans,  XIV.  31),  "Because  wine  too  was  used 
in  libations  to  the  gods  of  the  Gentiles,  many 
weaker  brethren,  accustomed  to  purchase  such 
things,  preferred  to  abstain  entirely  from  flesh  and 
wine  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  having  fellow- 
ship, as  they  considered  it,  with  idols,  even  ig- 
norantly".  Indeed  the  Wesleyan  theologian,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Agar  Beet,  agreeing  with  St. 
Augustine,  takes  the  wine  in  this  very  verse,  "It 
is  good  not  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to 


THE  EPISTLES  109 

do  anything  whereby  thy  brother  stiimbleth" 
(Rom.  14.21),  to  mean,  not  wine  in  general,  but 
''wine  offered  to  idols";  and  he  compares  Deut. 
32.38  and  Isa.  57.6. 

It  is  not  disputed,  indeed,  that  the  principle 
St.  Paul  lays  down  has  a  far  wider  application 
than  the  instances  he  had  in  mind.  St.  Augustine 
recognizes  this,  in  section  35,  in  stating  one  pur- 
pose of  the  abstinence  from  meat  and  wine  to  be 
the  discouragement  of  excess.  But  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  particular  charity  which  St. 
Paul  urged  was  a  concession  to  superstition, — a 
concession  that  may  not  go  beyond  a  certain  point. 

St.  Paul  cited  the  man  who  hath  faith  to  eat  all 
things  as  a  man  strong  in  the  faith:  I  know,  and 
am  persuaded  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  nothing  is 
unclean  of  itself  (Rom.  14.14).  Over  against  this 
Christian  of  robust  faith,  he  that  is  iveak  eateth 
herbs  (Rom.  14.2) ;  that  is,  is  a  vegetarian  from 
conscience.  The  vegetarian's  faith  is  weak;  but, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  St.  Paul  teaches,  it  ought  not 
to  be  despised  or  flouted.  As  faith,  it  ought  to 
be  deferred  to  and  encouraged ;  that  is,  so  far  as 
it  is  faith;  but  surely  its  weakness  is  not  to  be 
encouraged:  this  is  a  fault,  not  a  virtue.  What 
then?  The  weakness  must  be  tolerated,  for  the 
sake  of  the  faith.  It  can  indeed  be  rebuked,  so  it 
be  in  a  spirit  of  love,  and  not  to  the  hurt  of  the 
faith.  The  Christian  who  thinks  it  wrong  to  eat 
meat  (the  Apostolic  church  probably  had  these, 
who  had  been  imperfectly  converted  from  Es- 
senism)  is  surely  not  to  be  told  that  he  is  right. 
He  is  not  to  be  dealt  with  roughly ;  but  equally  he 


110  THE  BIBLE 

is  not  to  be  led  to  think  that  other  Christians  agree 
with  him.  Better  informed  Christians  finding 
themselves  at  table  with  him  ought  not  to  eat 
meat,  if  he,  through  moral  cowardice,  might  be  led 
to  do  the  same,  to  the  hurt  of  his  conscience ;  nor, 
again,  if  their  meat-eating  would  cause  him  grief; 
nor,  again,  if  it  might  lead  him  to  withdraw  from 
their  fellowship.  The  Christian  strong  in  the 
faith,  who  well  knows  the  indifferency  of  meats 
and  drinks, — all  things,  indeed,  are  clean, — of 
times  and  seasons,  should  abate  of  his  liberty,  or 
even,  under  circumstances,  sacrifice  it,  out  of 
charity  to  his  weak  brother.  But  still  it  remains 
that  this  over-scrupulousness  is  a  weakness,  a 
fault.  The  Church  must  tolerate  it,  must  even 
treat  it  tenderly;  but  encourage  it  the  Church 
must  not.  The  weak  brother's  weakness  is  a  weak- 
ness to  the  Church  as  well.  If  the  Church  were 
made  up  only  of  weak  brothers,  it  would  be  a  very 
unsatisfactory  body  indeed, — far  from  what 
Christ  intended  it  to  be.  The  church  must  have 
a  tender  regard  to  the  weak  brother;  but  it  has 
also,  and  even  more,  to  cherish  and  vindicate  the 
glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  It  cannot 
allow  itself,  through  excessive  complaisance,  to 
become  weak,  for  it  is  set  to  be  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,  the  mighty  army  of  the  Liv- 
ing God,  conquering  and  to  conquer.  Liberty  and 
truth  are  essentials  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  church 
must  proclaim  these  glad  tidings  throughout  all 
the  world,  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof;  and  it 
must  not  cease  proclaiming  them,  till  they  be  in- 
corporated in  the  creed  and  heart  of  the  race. 


THE  EPISTLES  111 

The  truth  shall  make  you  free;  and  the  weak  in 
the  faith  who  scruple  over  meats  and  drinks,  and 
times  and  seasons,  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  ob- 
struct the  Grospel;  not  to  be  allowed  to  pervert 
others  to  their  ignorance  and  error;  not  to  be  al- 
lowed to  set  up  their  defective,  yes,  their  false, 
Gospel  as  a  rival  to  the  perfect  law,  the  law  of 
liberty,  which  whoso  looketh  into  shall  he  blessed 
in  his  doing  (James  1.25).  The  church  can  tol- 
erate a  private  practice  or  private  belief  that  is 
defective,  but  it  cannot  tolerate  a  rival  Gospel. 
To  do  so  would  be,  not  charity,  but  unfaithfulness. 
The  Christian  weak  in  the  faith  is  not  to  be  dis- 
turbed so  long  as  his  error  does  not  vitiate  his 
life,  and  so  long  as  he  is  content  to  hold  his  error 
in  a  private,  individual,  modest  fashion.  But,  as 
soon  as  he  erects  it  into  an  aggressive,  proselyt- 
ing, intolerant  faction  or  heresy,  he  is  to  be  given 
place  to,  in  the  way  of  subjection,  no,  not  for  an 
hour  (Gal.  2.5) ;  then  the  church  must  cry  aloud 
and  spare  not.  Then  these  weak  brothers  are  be- 
come false  brethren,  who  spy  out  our  liberty  ivhich 
we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  may  bring  us 
into  bondage  (Gal.  2.4).  A  weak  brother  is  tol- 
erable, but  a  weak  church,  never !  Christian  char- 
ity has  its  place;  it  has  also  its  limits.  The  weak 
brother  has  his  claims;  he  has  also  his  obligations. 
The  strong  brother  has  his  obligations;  he  has 
also  his  rights.  It  may  be  his  duty  to  concede  a 
practice ;  it  is  not  his  duty  to  concede  a  principle. 
It  is  his  duty  not  to  concede  it,  if  the  conces- 
sion be  demanded.  He  may,  perhaps,  for  the  oc- 
casion, waive,  but  he  may  not  concede,  it.     The 


112  THE  BIBLE 

strong  should  guard  against  pride  and  contempt ; 
but  the  weak  should  equally  guard  against  censo- 
riousness.  In  this  14th  chapter  of  Romans  St. 
Paul  is  not  only  warning  the  strong;  he  is  also 
rebuking  the  weak.  He  does  not  coddle,  he  re- 
bukes them.  In  the  last  portion  of  the  previous 
chapter  he  had  condemned  over-indulgence ;  in  the 
present  chapter  he  is  condemning  excessive  scru- 
pulousness. This  is  a  fact  too  important  to  be  over- 
looked, as  it  often  is.  This  weakness,  this 
over-scrupulousness,  is  a  fault,  and  St.  Paul 
penned  this  reproof  of  it.  When  he  exclaimed. 
Who  art  thou  that  judgest  the  servant  of  another? 
to  his  own  lord  he  standeth  or  falleth  (verse  4), 
he  is  rebuking  the  weak  brother.  He  tells  him 
flatly  that  the  man  whom  he  is  condemning  is  not 
a  household  slave,  but  the  servant  of  God ;  to  God 
therefore  he  is  responsible:  ''It  is  to  his  own 
master  that  he  is  responsible.  To  him  he  must 
show  whether  he  has  used  or  misused  his  free- 
dom. Yea,  in  spite  of  your  censoriousness,  he  will 
be  held  straight,  for  the  same  Lord  who  called  him 
on  conditions  of  freedom  to  his  Kingdom  is  mighty 
to  hold  him  upright":  so  Sanday  &  Headlem,  in 
the  International  Critical  Commentary.  Then 
the  Apostle  turns  to  another  instance  of  similar 
scrupulousness,  the  superstitious  observance  of 
days.  At  a  later  date  he  summed  up,  with  char- 
acteristic vigor,  the  whole  principle  in  these  words 
to  the  Colossians,  2.16,  17:  Let  no  man  therefore 
judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of 
a  feast  dag  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sabbath  day. 


THE  EPISTLES  113 

Mark,  ''Let  no  man  judge  you  in  respect  of 
drink". 

Do  you,  my  friend,  judge  another  in  respect  of 
drink!  Then  the  Bible  is  against  you.  You  may 
judge  yourself,  but  not  another. 

The  strong,  then,  must  consider  the  weak.  The 
weak  must  not  erect  his  weakness  into  a  law  for 
others.  Neither  must  the  strong  do  the  same  thing 
in  his  behalf.  The  weak  must  not  expect  to  have 
everything  done  for  him:  he  must  be  willing  to 
fight  a  part  of  his  battle  himself,  as  well  as  to 
bear  some  of  the  inconveniences  of  his  weakness. 
We  ought  to  become  all  things  to  all  men,  but  not 
to  the  point  of  self-obliteration.  A  world  ordered 
for  the  sole  convenience  of  weaklings  is  surely  not 
the  world  of  freedom  and  joy  and  light  contem- 
plated by  the  Gospel. 

For  example,  in  this  very  matter  of  meat-eating, 
Americans  eat  too  much  meat,  to  the  undoing  of 
their  digestion,  the  over-stimulus  of  their  physical 
energies,  and  an  excessive  craving  for  alcohol. 
Must  we  moderate  meat-eaters,  then,  turn  vege- 
tarians? Or  must  we  omit  meat  when  we  have 
guests  that  we  know  are  too  fond  of  it?  Or,  when 
they  ask  for  a  second  helping,  must  we  kindly,  but 
firmly,  refuse?  Yet  this  is  possible, — that  if 
everybody  gave  up  meat,  the  country  would  be 
healthier ;  it  is  certain  many  a  weak  brother  would 
be  saved.  Yet  everybody  feels  that  the  Pauline 
principle,  If  meat  causeth  my  brother  to  stumble, 
I  will  eat  no  flesh  forevermore,  that  I  cause  not 
my  brother  to  stumble  (1  Cor.  8.13),  stops  far 
short  of  this.    St.  Paul  lived  up  to  his  own  prin- 


114  THE  BIBLE 

ciple;  and  meat  (on  the  question  whether  kosher 
or  tref ;  whether  offered  to  idols  or  not;  whether 
tabu,  from  the  Pythagorean  principle  of  the  kin- 
ship of  all  life)  was  a  frequent  cause  of  stumbling 
to  the  weak  Christian.  But  St.  Paul  did  not, 
therefore,  become  a  vegetarian.  When  with  the 
weak  brother,  he  deferred  to  his  scruples.  That 
was  all,  and  that  was  enough.  The  Pauline  prin- 
ciple is  just  a  kindly  common-sense. 

And  so  of  all  other  lawful  indulgences;  there 
is  not  one  that  some  weak  brother  is  not  offended 
by.  There  is  not  one  whose  entire  elimination 
would  not  save  several  weak  brothers,  for  whom 
Christ  died.  Take  the  matter  of  jewelry.  It  is  not 
a  necessity;  it  is  a  luxury.  On  the  one  hand,  it 
ministers  a  legitimate  satisfaction.  On  the  other, 
its  lure  is  so  powerful  that,  quite  possibly,  it 
does,  on  the  whole,  more  harm  than  good.  Some 
deny  themselves  necessaries  of  life  to  buy  it. 
Others,  who  could  afford  a  modest  purchase,  go 
beyond  their  means,  running  into  debt,  or  leaving 
debts  unpaid.  It  is,  besides,  an  occasion  of  envy- 
ings,  jealousies,  heart-burnings,  pride,  vanity,  os- 
tentation. Worst  of  all,  jewelry  has  lured  many 
a  girl  and  woman  to  her  fall ;  and  is  doing  it  today, 
and  will  do  it.  If  merchants  in  this  line  told  all 
they  knew  on  this  subject,  the  public  would  be 
shocked.  It  is  also  true  that  every  time  a  woman 
decks  herself  in  jewels,  it  may  cause  some  weak 
sister  to  offend.  It  is  certain  to  do  so  sometimes. 
It  is  certain  that,  if  the  wearing  of  jewelry  were 
given  over  entirely,  these  weak  sisters  would  not 
offend, — certainly  not  in  this  way.    Moreover,  the 


THE  EPISTLES  115 

very  Apostle  that  is  quoted  against  wine  has  used 
much  stronger  language  against  jewelry.  What 
he  says  of  drinking  no  wine  is  from  consideration 
of  the  stumbling  brother;  it  is  with  an  "if".  But 
his  condemnation  of  jewelry  is  categorical;  he 
seems  to  condemn  it  in  itself:  7  desire  . 
that  women  adorn  themselves  in  modest  apparel, 
with  shamefastness  and  sobriety;  not  with  braided 
hair,  and  gold  or  pearls  or  costly  raiment  (1  Tim. 
2.8,9).  And,  while  no  other  Apostle  than  St. 
Paul  is  claimed  against  wine,  St.  Peter  confirms, 
and  almost  seems  to  quote,  him,  against  jewelry: 
Whose  adorning  [that  is,  wives']  let  it  not  be  the 
outward  adorning  of  braiding  the  hair,  and  of 
wearing  jeivels  of  gold,  or  of  putting  on  apparel 
(1  Peter  3.3).  Is  it  not,  then,  our  duty  to  wear  no 
jewels  while  the  world  standethf  It  is  not  only 
Demetrius  the  silversmith  (Acts  19.24)  that  utters 
an  emphatic  No;  the  good  sense  of  Christendom 
repudiates  the  suggestion  as  an  absurd  extreme. 
We  have  a  duty  in  the  premises;  we  should  con- 
sider those  whom  we  know  to  have  a  w^eakness 
in  this  way;  we  should  forego  somewhat  for  their 
sake.  But,  as  long  as  we  use  judgment  and  con- 
sideration, we  do  no  wrong  in  wearing  jewels.  It 
is  our  duty  not  to  put  temptation  in  the  way  of 
the  weak;  but  it  is  also  the  duty  of  the  weak  to 
keep  out  of  the  way  of  temptation.  The  weak 
brother  ought  not  to  expect  to  enjoy  the  same  free- 
dom as  if  he  were  strong;  he  should  be  willing 
to  accept  some  of  the  penalties  of  his  weakness. 
Society  cannot  be  reconstructed  for  his  accommo- 


116  THE  BIBLE 

dation.  The  Pauline  principle  is  just  a  kindly 
common  sense. 

Automobiles  cause  many  a  weak  brother  to  of- 
fend. Men  have  stolen,  to  buy  an  automobile,  or 
to  maintain  it.  Others  have  mortgaged  their 
homes.  Others  have  left  creditors  unpaid.  Others 
stint  in  ways  that  do  them  harm.  Christians  have 
given  up  their  pews,  and  their  church,  to  spend 
their  money  and  their  Sundays  automobiling. 

Moreover,  most  automobilists  are  law-breakers 
in  the  matter  of  speed;  who,  were  there  no  auto- 
mobiles, would  be  law-abiding  citizens.  This 
lawlessness  sometimes  results  in  injury,  some- 
times in  death,  to  themselves  and  those  with  them ; 
or  to  others  using  the  highways  on  their  lawful 
occasions ; — not  to  speak  of  the  property  loss.  The 
toll  of  injury,  loss,  and  death  from  automobiles 
is  a  scandal. 

Reckless  chauffeurs,  again,  are  a  new  and 
formidable  terror  to  the  wayfarer;  they  would 
probably  be  unoffending  mechanics,  were  it  not 
for  automobiles. 

It  is  a  debatable  question  whether  pleasure  au- 
tomobiles have  not  done  more  harm  than  good. 

Does  St.  Paul,  then,  require  the  strong  brother, 
who  can  use  his  liberty  without  abusing  it,  to 
forego  or  discard  his  car,  because  of  the  weak 
brother?  Must  he  and  his  family  forego  the 
beauty  of  the  country,  the  fresh  air,  the  zest  of  ap- 
petite, the  general  exhilaration  of  these  "spins", 
because  one  weak  brother  may  be  made  covetous, 
another  extravagant,  another  reckless  of  life  and 
limb,  misusing  his  example  1    Neither  St.  Paul,  nor 


THE  EPISTLES  117 

the  church,  nor  the  good  sense  of  men  would  say 
so. 

Becoming  clothes,  too,  have  been  the  undoing 
of  many,  both  men  and  women.  Here  is  a  source 
of  unhappiness  more  prolific  than  several  that 
loom  up  larger.  It  forms  a  considerable  item  in 
the  high  cost  of  living.  Because  of  it  many  con- 
sume their  days  in  vanity,  their  days  and  their 
dollars.  It  could  be  removed  wholly,  or  largely, 
if  those  who  are  strong  to  set  the  tone  of  society, 
— if  church  members, — should  resolve,  *'//  fash- 
ionable clothing  causeth  my  brother  to  stumble,  I 
will  wear  no  fashionable  clothing,  while  the  world 
standeth,  that  I  cause  not  my  brother  to  stumble'^; 
''It  is  good  not  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine,  nor 
to  wear  fashionable  clothing,  whereby  thy  brother 
stumbleth".  Instead,  the  strong  brethren  might 
wear,  while  the  world  standeth,  a  sober  and  un- 
changing garb,  like  the  Dunkards',  which  would 
meet  the  requirements  of  decency  and  protection 
far  better  than  our  present  modish  cuts. 

Must  we  do  it?  We  ought  to  avoid  extremes 
and  extravagance;  we  ought  to  consider  the  in- 
fluence of  our  example;  but  must  we,  to  be  good 
Christians,  eschew  beauty  and  charm  in  our 
clothing, — or  even  fashion  altogether? 

Tea  and  coffee  are  drunk  in  excess  by  multi- 
tudes. So  taken,  they  injure  the  nerves,  the  di- 
gestion, the  heart.  Many  people  are  as  complete 
slaves  to  their  tea  and  coffee  as  the  toper  to  his 
whiskey,  and  physicians  are  attaching  much  im- 
portance to  the  ravages  of  this  sort  of  intemper- 
ance.   Now  these  tea  and  coffee  victims  are  surely 


118  THE  BIBLE 

"weak  brethren".  Were  it  not  for  the  example 
of  their  strong  brethren,  misused,  they  might 
never  have  contracted  the  habit ;  and  were  it  not 
for  that  example  today,  they  might  indulge  their 
appetite  less  freely  and  frequently;  or  at  least 
they  would  not  justify  themselves  as  they  do.  If 
the  moderate  users  became  abstainers,  on  the 
principle,  ^'If  tea  and  cojfee  cause  my  brother 
to  stumble,  I  will  drink  no  tea  or  coffee  while  the 
world  standeth,  that  I  cause  not  my  brother  to 
stumble",  there  would,  surely,  be  less  excess  and 
suffering  in  this  kind.  Must  we,  then,  as  Chris- 
tians, quit  tea  and  coifee?  Certainly  not.  The 
Pauline  principle  applies  in  this  field,  but  not  to 
that  length.  The  Pauline  principle  is  not  rigor- 
ism ;  it  is  kindly  common-sense. 

And  so  of  tobacco.  Many  are  slaves  to  it,  to 
the  injury  of  body  and  mind.  Was  Phillips  Brooks, 
then,  in  smoking  his  big  black  cigars,  from  which 
he  got  so  much  pleasure  and  no  harm,  doing  an 
unchristian  thing?  Some  weak  brethren,  it  is  true, 
men  and  boys,  may  have  been  encouraged  to  excess 
by  a  misuse  of  his  example.  In  their  presence, 
if  he  knew  their  weakness,  he  would  have  ab- 
stained. Was  anything  further  required  by  the 
Christian  law  of  charity?  Did  St.  Paul  really 
mean,  "I  will  not  use  any  pleasant  thing  that  an- 
other may  abuse"?  He  did  not  follow  this  rule 
himself,  nor  did  he  enjoin  it  on  others ;  and  Chris- 
tianity could  never  have  made  its  triumphal 
progress,  had  it  so  affronted  the  universal  reason 
of  men.  Even  professed  ascetics  have  not  gone 
that  far:  they  denied,  they  mortified,  themselves; 


THE  EPISTLES  119 

they  did  not  force  their  denials   and  mortifica- 
tions on  others. 

Everything  lawful  may  be  abused, — speech,  ice- 
water,  religion.  If  men  held  their  tongue,  or  con- 
fined themselves  to  necessary  utterance,  much 
mischief  would  be  avoided.  If  we  drank  no  ice- 
water,  nobody  would  suffer  from  the  ice-water 
habit.  If  I  prefer  my  religion  with  a  rich  ritual, 
a  weak  brother,  seeing  me,  may  abuse  that  ritual 
by  making  it  a  substitute  for  the  weightier  mat- 
ters of  the  law.  Am  I  debarred,  then,  from  the 
worship  I  prefer?  If  we  are  to  surrender  every- 
thing, however  lawful,  that  another  may  find  a 
pretext  in  our  example  for  abusing,  life  will  be 
reduced  to  mere  necessary  elements,  a  calamitous 
impoverishment.  The  weakling  will  rule  the 
world.  Temperance  will  disappear.  As  Tertul- 
lian  believed  "because  it  was  absurd",  we  should 
choose  because  it  was  unpleasant;  for  things  pleas- 
ant are  more  liable  to  abuse  than  things  not  so 
pleasant ;  no  one  is  so  apt  to  go  to  excess  on  hard- 
tack as  on  porter-house;  on  tepid  water  as  on 
beer.  It  may  be  true  that,  if  we  all  lived  on  hard- 
tack and  tepid  water,  we  should  be  healthier, — 
healthier,  yet  not  so  happy.  How  many  would 
care  for  such  a  bare,  joyless  life!  A  philosopher 
here  and  there;  occasionally  a  religious  devotee. 
But,  for  most,  it  is  the  things  we  do  not  need 
that  make  life  attractive.  That  everyone  should 
consider  the  effect  of  his  example  is  recognized. 
That  everyone  should  abate  of  his  own  freedom, 
when  others  might  be  led  astray  through  it,  is  a 
duty.     It  is  also  true  that  those  in  conspicuous 


120  THE  BIBLE 

place  are  under  special  obligations  to  guard  their 
walk  and  conversation.  Yet  even  this  obligation 
has  its  limits;  even  prominent  people  have  some 
rights,  even  as  against  the  whole  multitude  of 
weaklings. 

The  strong  brother  must  consider  the  weak; 
but  how,  and  how  far,  is  for  him  to  say  and  no 
one  else.  It  is  a  matter  between  him  and  his  God ; 
and  the  decision  he  comes  to  is  not  subject  to 
any  one's  review.  Two  Christians,  equally  con- 
scientious, might  take  different  views  of  their  duty 
in  the  same  situation.  In  these  fine  arbitraments 
of  judgment  and  conscience  no  outsider  who  was 
wise  would  wish  to  intrude.  Outside  the  common 
moralities,  it  is  a  serious  thing  to  tell  a  man  what 
his  duty  is. 

To  the  rigorist's  rule,  ''Touch  not,  taste  not, 
handle  not",  we  oppose,  "The  earth  is  the  Lord's 
and  the  fulness  thereof" ;  "the  earth  hath  he  given 
to  the  children  of  men".  The  "meat"  that  St. 
Paul  spoke  of  was  not  merely  flesh  food;  it  was 
pagan  poetry  and  art,  the  theatre,  dancing,  secu- 
lar music,  entertainments,  games,  good  clothes, 
jewelry.  It  is  these  today  too,  plus  cards,  bil- 
liards, baseball,  tobacco,  automobiles,  aeroplanes. 
Thanksgiving  and  Christmas  dinners. 

Paul's  meaning  is  that,  if  I  have  knowledge  of 
some  weak  brother  who  may  go  wrong  because  I 
indulge  myself,  I  ought  to  forego  the  indulgence. 
I  am  obliged  to  this  self-sacrifice,  however,  not  by 
a  vague  danger,  but  by  a  pretty  definite  knowledge. 
If  a  man  unable  to  control  his  appetite  for  drink 
were  among  my  dinner  guests,  I  ought  not  to  serve 


THE  EPISTLES  121 

drink.  I  ought  to  omit  either  the  man  or  the  drink. 
But  not  both.  It  is  unreasonable  to  demand  that 
I  exclude  drink  from  my  table,  simply  because 
some  weak  brother  who  is  not  there  may  hear  that 
wine  was  served  and  make  it  a  pretext  to  go  off 
on  a  spree.  My  conduct  surely  must  not  be  gov- 
erned by  his  bad  logic.  It  would  be  a  topsy-turvy 
world,  if  it  were  subject  to  such  disordered  rea- 
soning as  the  following:  ''As  long  as  the  Latin 
races  drink,  we  Germanic  peoples  will  get  drunk. 
Therefore  the  Latin  races  must  stop  drinking". 
Paul's  robust  sense  would  have  made  short  work 
of  such  inconsequence.  The  principle  is  not :  '*A 
get  drunks;  therefore  B  must  not  drink";  but,  ''A 
gets  drunk;  therefore  A  must  not  drink,  and  B 
must  not  drink  when  A  is  around". 

Nor  do  we  need  proof  that  no  member  of  the 
company  is  weak.  We  have  a  right  to  assume  it, 
unless  it  be  a  large  and  miscellaneous  gathering, 
which  will  probably  have  some  of  this  type.  Even 
here  the  occasion  and  the  company  have  their 
claims.  One  weak  brother  has  no  right  to  inter- 
fere with  the  enjoyment  of  a  dozen  or  a  hundred 
reasonable  people,  when  he  can  just  as  well  keep 
away.  The  banquet  he  is  invited  to  is  a  fortnight 
distant,  three  miles  off.  He  knows  that  drink  will 
hh  served  there.  What  compulsion  is  he  under  to 
go?  He  should  decline.  He  will  lose  the  enjoy- 
ment of  meeting  friends  and  chums;  but  this  is 
only  a  just  penalty  of  his  weakness.  Somebody 
has  to  suffer  for  his  weakness,  if  he  is  to  stay 
sober.  Why  not  he  rather  than  the  hundred 
banqueters?    Why  should  he,  or  his  advocates, 


122  THE  BIBLE 

ask  society  to  deny  its  safe,  lawful,  and  customary 
indulgences,  that  is,  to  suffer  all  the  deprivations 
of  the  weak  brother,  in  order  that  the  weak  brother 
may  suffer  none? 

As  a  German  theologian,  Eichhorn  (I  think  it 
was),  said:  "We  must  not  use  our  liberty  reck- 
lessly: yet  renunciation  is  not  unlimited.  If  it 
were,  it  would  confirm  the  weak  in  their  mistake ; 
the  strong  would  be  hindered  in  their  progress, 
and  the  truth  denied.  The  requirement  that  we 
should  accommodate  ourselves  to  the  weak  must 
therefore  be  combined  with  this, — we  must  lead 
the  weak  to  truth  and  strength.  Our  rule  must  be 
accommodation  with  correction;  to  consider  the 
weak,  but  not  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  placed  by 
them  under  any  law  of  thraldom.  Under  all  con- 
ditions we  should  maintain  the  law  of  evangelical 
liberty.  Every  attempt,  therefore,  to  stamp  the 
merely  individual  as  the  universal  and  generally 
obligatory  should  be  protested  against,  and  the 
individual  must  be  kept  within  its  proper  limits. 
Delicate  situations  must  be  met,  not  by  rules  lead- 
ing to  endless  discussions,  but  by  immediate  tact 
and  the  power  of  personality". 

This,  too,  is  the  view  taken  of  St.  Paul's  teach- 
ing by  the  editors  of  the  volume  on  1  Corinthians, 
in  the  International  Critical  Commentary, — the  Et. 
Eev.  Archibald  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  and  the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  M.A.,  D.D., 
late  Master  of  University  College,  Durham;  on 
the  verse,  ''If  food  causes  my  brother  to  stumble, 
I  will  certainly  never  eat  flesh  again  for  evermore, 
that  I  may  not  make  my  brother  to  stumble"  (1 


THE  EPISTLES  123 

Cor.  8.13): — "The  declaration  is  conditional.  If 
the  Apostle  knows  of  definite  cases  in  which  his 
eating  food  will  lead  to  others  being  encouraged 
to  violate  the  dictates  of  conscience,  then  cer- 
tainly he  will  never  eat  meat  so  long  as  there  is 
real  danger  of  this  (10.28,  29).  But,  if  he  knows 
of  no  such  danger,  he  will  use  his  Christian  free- 
dom and  eat  without  scruple  (10.25-27).  He  does 
not  of  course  mean  that  the  whole  practice  of 
Christians  is  to  be  regulated  with  a  view  to  the 
possible  scrupulousness  of  the  narrow-minded. 
That  would  be  to  sacrifice  our  divinely  given  lib- 
erty (2  Cor.  3.17)  to  the  ignorant  prejudices  of 
bigots.  The  circumstances  of  this  or  that  Chris- 
tian may  be  such  that  it  is  his  duty  to  abstain  from 
intoxicants,  although  he  is  never  tempted  to  drink 
to  excess ;  but  Christians  in  general  are  bound  by 
no  such  rule,  and  it  would  be  tyranny  to  try  to 
impose  such  a  rule". 

And  I  add,  Has  the  church  a  right  to  confess 
itself  vanquished  by  any  lawful  appetite?  Is  it 
not  its  duty  to  show  that  it  is  master  of  all,  by 
saying  to  every  one  of  them.  Thus  far,  and  no 
farther?  The  church's  credit  is  not  in  retreat, 
but  in  conquest.  It  is  proper  for  the  weak  brother 
to  say,  "I  must  let  this  alone,  because  it  is  too 
strong  for  me".  But  it  would  be  a  humiliation 
and  an  abdication  for  the  Christian  fellowship  to 
say  that.  There  is  a  moral  majesty  in  abstaining 
wholly  from  wrong.  There  is  also  an  equal  moral 
majesty  in  moving  freely  among  the  lawful  ap- 
petites, passions,  pleasures,  using  all,  mastered 
by  none.    Surely  this  is  a  valuable  element  in  the 


124  THE  BIBLE. 

Christian  ideal,  this  noble  temperance,  this  just 
self-control ;  and  the  church  would  be  poor  indeed 
"without  it. 

The  weak  brother  may  find  it  profitable  to  cut 
off  arm  or  leg,  even  to  pluck  out  his  eye,  and  cast 
them  from  him,  if  they  cause  him  to  offend.  But 
the  rest  of  us  are  not  obliged  to  this  self-mutila- 
tion in  order  to  make  him  feel  comfortable.  A 
Christendom  made  up  of  one-legged,  one-armed, 
one-eyed  people  would  be  far  inferior  even  to  our 
present  imperfect  order.  Our  Maker  gave  us  two 
legs,  two  arms,  two  eyes,  because  he  wished  us  to 
have  and  use  and  rejoice  in  them.  If,  then,  we 
are  bid  do  or  believe  something  that  revolts  our 
conscience  and  intelligence,  other  considerations, 
for  the  nonce,  may  have  stronger  claims  than  the 
weak  brother.  The  sincere  believer  is  told  that 
the  Bible  condemns  wine  and  "strong  drink".  He 
knows  better.  He  is  told  that  the  wine  into  which 
Jesus  converted  water,  at  the  marriage  feast  in 
Cana  of  Galilee,  and  over  which  the  experienced 
master  of  the  feast  waxed  so  eulogistic,  was  only 
unfermented  grape-juice.  Knowing  his  Bible,  he 
listens  with  impatience.  He  is  told  that  drink  is 
the  one  prolific  source  of  vice,  crime,  unhappiness, 
and  poverty.  I^owing  something  of  Mohamme- 
dan societies,  of  Latin  Christendom,  and  of  human 
nature,  he  laughs.  And  on  these  and  such  grounds 
he  is  bid  let  drink  alone! 

Is  it  not  his  duty,  rather,  to  vindicate  Christian 
liberty  and  Christian  truth?  That  liberty  and 
truth  were  purchased  at  too  costly  a  price  to  let 
them   go,    by    default,    from    any    consideration 


THE  EPISTLES  125 

whatever.  They  have  been  given  us,  not  to  sur- 
render, but  to  defend  and  propagate.  For  the 
nonce,  the  weak  brother  must  look  out  for  himself. 

The  Pauline  view  is  that  we  must  proclaim  our 
freedom,  from  all  these  rigorist  prohibitions, 
whether  dealing  with  wine,  meat,  marriage,  days 
and  times  and  seasons, — in  a  word,  from  all  tee- 
total views, — as  part  of  the  Gospel  message ;  just 
as  the  same  Apostle  preached  freedom  from  cir- 
cumcision and  Sabbath  observance.  The  Gospel 
was  the  doing  away  of  all  these  restrictions,  not 
their  continuance,  and  not  the  substitution  of  a 
new  set  for  the  old.  The  rigorist 's  view  is  the 
contradiction  of  all  this.  He  works  to  make  tliis 
bondage  to  legalism  tighter,  and  ever  tighter,  until 
finally  every  vestige  of  liberty  be  taken  from  us. 
That  is,  the  rigorists  put  forward  as  the  ideal  they 
seek  to  establish  the  very  thing  St.  Paul  sought 
to  abolish.  The  very  bondage  Christ  died  to  free 
us  from  they  would  again  make  us  slaves  to. 
Legalism  crucified  him  before.  These  New  Le- 
galists would  crucify  him  afresh  and  put  him  to 
open  shame  by  blaspheming  the  liberty  he  won  for 
us.  The  issue  is  a  vital  one.  It  might  today  al- 
most be  described  as  articulus  stantis  et  cadentis 
ecclesiae,  because  the  Christ-spirit  tends  one  way, 
— to  free  us  from  Sabbatarianism,  teetotalism,  and 
other  legalisms, — ^while  rigorism,  or  New  Legal- 
ism, seeks  to  impose  these  chains  afresh.  The 
typical  and  symbolic  miracle  of  modern  rigorism 
would  be  the  turning  of  wine  into  water. 

Martin  Luther,  while  ^recognizing  the  dis- 
cipKnary  value  of  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day,  and 


126  THE  BIBLE 

also  the  duty  of  conforming  with  the  well-settled 
customs  of  the  Christian  society,  denied  that  the 
day  had  any  divine  authorization,  and  fiercely  de- 
nounced the  effort  to  establish  it  on  such  a  foun- 
dation. "If  anywhere",  he  says,  ''the  day  is 
made  holy  for  the  mere  day's  sake, — if  anywhere 
one  sets  up  its  observance  on  a  Jewish  foundation, 
then  I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to  ride  on  it,  to 
dance  on  it,  to  feast  on  it,  to  do  anything  that 
shall  remove  this  encroachment  on  Christian  lib- 
erty" (Luther's  "Table  Talk").  If  they  had 
dared  to  tell  him  that  he  must  not  drink,  because 
wine  was  unscriptural  and  sinful,  we  can  hear  that 
robustious  peasant-prophet  shouting  his  orders, 
"Drink  in  their  faces". 

If  the  rigorist  view  of  the  Pauline  principle 
were  correct,  the  distinction  between  things  that 
are  required  and  things  that  are  only  lawful  would 
disappear.  Since  every  one  of  these  "lawful" 
things  may  be  the  undoing  of  a  weak  brother,  the 
rigorist  rule  would  place  them  all  under  the  ban. 
Everything  would  then  be  either  commanded  or 
forbidden,  positively  required  or  positively  ex- 
cluded. The  only  function  of  judgment  would  be 
the  determination  between  right  and  wrong,  never 
the  discrimination  between  the  wise  and  unwise, 
or  between  the  wise  and  less  wise.  But  not  even 
the  rigorist  could  order  his  days  along  lines  so 
hard  and  fast.  The  larger  part  of  our  moral 
judgments  is,  in  fact,  occupied  with  interests  that 
are  permissible,  lawful,  right,  but  not  necessary; 
that  may  be  admitted  or  shut  out;  that  may  be 
admitted  in  part  and  shut  out  in  part;  that  may 


THE  EPISTLES  127 

be  admitted  today  and  shut  out  tomorrow, — on 
considerations  of  expediency,  without  moral  of- 
fence. 

In  justice  to  the  weak  brother,  it  ought  to  be 
added  that  it  is  not  he  who  is  prone  to  make  un- 
reasonable demands.  As  a  rule,  he  quite  recog- 
nizes the  right  of  other  people  to  attend  to  their 
own  affairs,  even  while  lamenting  his  inability  to 
attend  to  his  own.  The  situation  commonly  is 
that  a  number  of  noisy  brothers  thrust  themselves, 
unasked,  into  the  case,  as  the  weak  brother's  near- 
est friends.  He  has  not  appointed  them  his 
guardians,  and  may  resent  their  proprietorship  in 
him  and  his  welfare.  No  matter.  They  take  com- 
mand of  the  situation,  and  dispense  their  bulls  and 
anathemas  on  all  sides.  It  is  not  the  weak  brother 
who  is  unreasonable,  who  is  unscriptural,  who  is 
dictatorial;  it  is  these  strong  brothers, — strong, 
but  mistaken. 

In  considering  the  Pauline  rule,  wine  cannot 
be  taken  out  of  the  large  class  to  which  it  belongs, 
the  class  of  lawful  things  that  may  or  may  not 
be  expedient.  To  make  a  special  rule  for  wine  (or 
like  beverages)  is  unwarranted.  There  is  nothing 
about  it  or  them  to  require  a  separate  classification 
or  treatment, — unless  it  be  that  they  have  scrip- 
tural and  divine  sanction  that  most  others  have 
not.  They  have  their  use ;  they  are  liable  to  abuse ; 
in  using  them  we  must  be  considerate  of  others; 
we  must  not  judge  another  whose  practice  differs 
from  ours, — to  his  own  Master  he  standeth  or 
falleth;  the  renunciation  that  we  owe  to  the  weak 
brother   has   its   limits;   human   nature,    as   the 


128  THE  BIBLE 

Creator  made  it,  has  its  rights;  concession  must 
not  go  to  the  point  of  erecting  our  brother's  weak- 
ness into  a  principle  of  truth  or  a  norm  of  prac- 
tice; and  the  general  aim  must  be  to  infuse 
strength,  not  to  coddle  weakness; — this  is  the 
Pauline  principle; — which  is  not  rigor,  extrava- 
gance, impossibilism,  but  just  kindly  common- 
sense. 

We  are  not  discussing  the  duty  of  the  state  in 
this  field.  The  modern  state  is  not  a  theocracy, 
and  its  lines  seldom  coincide  with  those  prescribed 
by  the  Bible  and  church  for  the  conscience.  It  may 
allow  things  that  our  religion  does  not  allow.  It 
may  forbid  things  that  our  religion  does  not  for- 
bid. There  need  be  conflict  only  when  the  state 
commands  or  forbids  what  our  religion  forbids  or 
commands. 

In  that  regrettable  situation  the  Christian's 
course  is  clear.  For  example,  if  the  state  forbade 
the  use  of  fermented  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion, 
we  would  disregard  it;  we  would  do  as  our  Lord 
told  us  to  do, — "All  of  you,  drink  of  this", — if 
we  had  to  go  to  jail  for  it.  Fortunately,  however, 
the  two  fields  are  so  removed,  for  the  most  part, 
that  interference  is  unlikely.  Any  Christian  may 
follow  his  conscience  and  obey  the  laws,  both. 


ni 


Beside  the  witness  of  the  Gospel  and  of  St. 
Paul,  we  have  a  decree  of  the  first  Council  of  the 
Christian  Church  that  has  a  bearing  on  the  matter. 


THE  EPISTLES  129 

The  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  15.28)  declared 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Council  laid  no 
greater  burden  on  the  Gentile  converts  than  to 
abstain  from  things  offered  to  idols,  from  blood, 
from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornication, — the 
first  three  being  temporary,  and  the  last  alone  of 
permanent  obligation.  Now  there  was  more  or 
less  drunkenness  among  these  Gentiles,  as  we  have 
seen.  Yet  the  Apostolic  Church,  guided,  as  it  de- 
clares, by  the  Holy  Spirit,  holds  it  to  be  unwise 
to  impose  anything  further  than  the  above. 

The  numerous  passages  of  Scripture  already 
cited  sufficiently  show  the  abhorrence  in  which  it 
holds  the  sin  of  intemperance.  Not  even  in  the 
earliest  stages  of  Revelation,  with  so  much  in  con- 
duct and  character  that  was  rough-and-ready,  and 
destined  to  be  outgrown,  was  this  particular  sin 
palliated.  Naturally  it  is  not  dwelt  on  so  in^ 
sistently  as  later;  but  yet  it  is  marked  for  a  sin 
as  patently  as  falsehood  or  robbery:  recall  the 
story  of  Noah's  drunkenness.  And,  as  the  sacred 
record  proceeds,  so  does  the  reprobation  of  drunk- 
enness: there  is  scarce  a  prophet  that  does  not 
denounce  it. 

The  New  Testament  over  and  over  again  pro- 
nounces the  curse  of  God  on  this  evil.  ''Take 
heed",  said  Jesus  (Luke  21.34),  "...  lest 
haply  your  hearts  be  overcharged  with  surfeiting, 
and  drunkenness";  "But,  if  that  servant  shall 
say  in  his  heart,  'My  lord  delayeth  his  coming'; 
and  shall  begin  to  beat  the  men-servants  and  the 
maid-servants,  and  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  be 
drunken;   the  lord  of   that   servant   shall  come 


130  THE  BIBLE 

.  and  shall  cut  him  asunder,  and  appoint 
his  portion  with  the  unfaithful"  (Luke  12.45-46). 
St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  6.10)  associates  drunkards 
with  abandoned  and  criminal  characters,  and  de- 
clares that  none  of  them  "shall  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God".  Likewise  the  book  of  the  Revela- 
tion (22.15)  excludes  them,  along  with  murderers, 
fornicators,  and  liars,  from  the  holy  city. 


PART  TWO 

THE  CHURCH 


CHAPTER   I 

THE   PRIMITIVE    CHURCH 
I 

By  '* primitive"  I  mean  the  first  century  or  so 
following  the  New  Testament  record.  The  data 
for  this  period  are  so  scant  that  we  could  not  tell 
from  them  whether  during  it  Christians  drank 
fermented  wine  freely  or  not.  But  they  were 
drinking  it  freely  when  we  saw  them  last.  They 
are  drinking  it  freely  when  we  catch  sight  of  them 
again.  Now,  if  they  were  drinking  before,  and 
drinking  after,  the  chances  are  they  were  drink- 
ing between. 

However,  let  us  now  examine  the  few  available 
data  for  this  obscure  period.  First,  however,  here 
is  something  remarkable. — Justin  Martyr's  first 
Apology,  about  140  A.  D.,  describing  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist,  says,  ''Then  there  is  pre- 
sented to  the  brethren  bread  and  a  cup  of  water. 
When  the  president  has  given  thanks 
.  the  deacons  distribute  to  each  of  those 
present  .  .  .  the  bread  and  the  water,  .  .  . 
and  they  carry  portions  away  to  those  not  pres- 
ent" (Chap.  65).  At  least,  this  is  the  reading  pre- 
ferred by  some  of  the  best  scholars  today,  such  as 

131 


132  THE  CHURCH 

Prof.  Harnack  and  Dr.  Frederick  C.  Conybeare. 
If  it  is  correct,  then  the  churches  for  which  Justin 
spoke  used  neither  wine  nor  grape-juice  in  the 
Eucharist,  but  water!  ''Justin  was  a  Eoman,  but 
may  not  represent  the  official  Roman  Church*'. 
''Tatian,  the  pupil  of  Justin,  used  water  in 
place  of  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion.  The 
Marcionites,  the  Ebionites,  the  Montanists  of 
Phrygia,  Africa,  and  Galatia,  also  the  confessor 
Alcibiades  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  177,  did  the  same. 
Cyprian  avers  that  his  predecessors  on  the  throne 
of  Carthage  had  used  water,  and  that  many  Afri- 
can bishops  continued  to  do  so,  "out  of  igno- 
rance", he  says,  "and  simple-mindedness,  and 
God  would  forgive  them".  Pionius,  the  Catholic 
martyr  of  Smyrna,  A.  D.  250,  also  used  water.  A 
heretical  writing,  the  Acts  of  Thomas,  about  200 
A.  D.,  has  water,  not  wine,  in  the  Holy  Com- 
munion. Also  there  was  an  ancient  Jewish  monas- 
tic order,  the  Therapeutae,  who  used  only  bread 
and  water  in  their  holy  repast.  Eusebius,  bishop 
of  Caesarea  (died  340  A.  D.),  and  a  notable  church 
historian,  found  this  no  bar  to  a  theory  that  the 
Therapeutae  were  the  first  converts  of  St.  Mark. 
In  fact,  there  is  so  much  about  the  use  of  water 
in  the  Eucharist,  in  the  early  church,  that  the 
famous  German  theologian.  Prof.  Harnack,  says 
(History  of  Dogma,  vol.  I,  page  212,  foot-note), 
"I  have  shown  that  in  the  different  Christian 
circles  of  the  second  century,  water,  and  only 
water,  was  often  used  in  the  Supper,  instead  of 
wine,  and  that  in  many  regions  this  custom  was 
maintained  up  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  133 

(See  Cyprian,  Ep.  63).  I  have  endeavored  to 
make  it  further  probable  that  even  Justin  in  his 
Apology  describes  a  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  bread  and  water". 

On  the  other  hand,  all  this  evidence,  and  more, 
with  Harnack's  entire  argument,  has  been  trav- 
ersed by  Scheiwiler,  in  his  ''Die  Elemente  der 
Eucharistie",  pages  176  and  following,  with  quite 
a  contrary  conclusion.  Scheiwiler  maintains,  as 
the  result  of  an  exhaustive  examination,  that,  be- 
yond individual  extravagances  and  eccentricities, 
no  other  beverage  than  wine  was  ever  used  or 
recognized  authoritatively  by  the  church. 

However  this  may  be,  everybody  admits  that 
the  use  of  water  for  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  a  departure  from  the  example  of  Jesus  and 
of  the  Apostolic  church.  The  reason  for  this 
unauthorized  substitution  is  not  indicated;  but  it 
is  safe  to  say  that  it  was  a  concession  to  the 
asceticism  not  uncommon  at  the  time,  throughout 
the  Eoman  world;  which  to  a  certain  extent  had 
infected  even  the  Church. 

But  it  never  became  the  rule:  the  most  that 
Prof.  Harnack  claims  for  it  is  equal,  or  almost 
equal,  vogue  for  a  time.  The  Church  as  a  whole 
did  not  succumb  to  this  aberration;  nor  did  the 
leading  portions  of  the  church.  The  Church  of 
this  period  never  ceased  to  carry  on  the  sound 
tradition  of  this  sacrament,  transmitted  by  Apos- 
tles and  Apostolic  Christians,  and  enshrined  in  the 
Gospels.  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
within  this  period,  in  its  prayer  "Concerning  the 
Cup",  says,  "We  give  thanks  to  thee,  our  Father, 


134  THE  CHURCH 

for  the  holy  vine  of  David  thy  servant,  which 
thou  didst  make  known  to  us  through  Jesus  thy 
servant", — language  not  applicable  to  water. 

To  this  primitive  period  also  belongs  evidence 
from  the  Catacombs.  A  frequent  representation 
on  their  walls  is  the  Eucharist ;  in  which  the  faith- 
ful recline  at  tables,  with  baskets  of  bread,  and 
with  bottles,  presumably,  of  wine. 

An  inscription  of  a  bishop  named  Abercius,  of 
Hierapolis,  160  A.  D.,  dealing  with  the  Eucharist, 
ends  with  these  words,  "having  good  wine  and 
giving  the  mixt  cup  with  bread".  Abercius  and 
Irenaeus  are  the  first  to  speak  of  wine  mixed  with 
water  in  the  Eucharist. 

Tertullian,  200  A.  D.,  tells  how  scrupulous  the 
priests  were  lest  a  crumb  of  the  bread  or  "a  drop 
of  the  wine"  should  fall  on  the  ground,  and  thus 
Christ's  body  be  trampled  on  and  otherwise  pro- 
faned (See,  for  above  facts,  Ency.  Brit.,  11th 
Edition,  "Eucharist"). 

The  Church,  as  a  whole,  or  in  large  part,  then, 
was  faithful  to  the  tradition  of  Christ;  and  it  was 
only  in  the  days  of  her  weakness,  when  she  was 
struggling  for  existence,  that  she  tolerated  a  de- 
parture from  it.  Jesus  used  wine;  the  church 
used  it.  Jesus  used  fermented  wine;  the  church 
used  it.  As  soon  as  the  church  was  in  a  position 
to  assert  herself,  she  rebuked  the  rigorism  that 
itself  rebuked,  and  set  itself  above,  its  Master: 
It  is  enough  for  the  disciple  that  he  he  as  his 
master,  and  the  servant  as  his  lord  (Mat.  10.25). 
This  asceticism  was  one  of  the  Church's  most 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  135 

troublesome  and  persistent  foes.    Let  us  examine 
it. 

II 

Asceticism. — As  far  back  as  history,  and  prob- 
ably as  far  back  as  humanity,  men  denied  and  tor- 
tured their  bodies,  to  procure  favor  from  the 
higher  powers.  In  civilized  times  great  waves  of 
this  asceticism  have  arisen  and  swept  over  coun- 
tries and  races,  forming  more  or  less  lasting  cults. 
Pythagoras  started  such  a  movement  over  five 
hundred  years  before  Christ;  and,  shortly  after, 
Buddha  preached  his  famous  Gospel  of  renuncia- 
tion. Both  these  teachers,  and  all  the  great  as- 
cetics, taught  that  'Hhe  body  is  the  tomb  of  the 
soul". 

When  Christianity  came,  society  was  every- 
where permeated  by  these  cults.  Among  the  Jews 
were  the  Therapeutae  and  the  Essenes,  who  fol- 
lowed a  monastic  system,  living  in  poverty,  chas- 
tity, and  fasting.  Christianity  found  asceticism 
at  every  turn,  among  Gentiles  as  among  Jews; 
and  was  much  troubled  by  it.  On  the  one  hand, 
ascetics  were  drawn  to  the  Church  by  its  pure 
morals;  on  the  other,  they  objected  to  the  honor 
and  the  privileges  it  accorded  to  the  body  and  its 
normal  instincts,  and  they  felt  they  had  a  mission 
to  improve,  in  this  direction,  on  the  Gospel.  St. 
Paul  hotly  denounced  these  rigorists  in  the 
Church,  forhidding  to  marry  and  commanding 
to  abstain  from  meats,  which  God  created  to  he 
received  ivith  thanhsgiving  by  them  that  believe 
and  know  the  truth.    For  every  creature  of  God 


136  THE  CHURCH 

is  good,  and  nothing  is  to  he  rejected,  if  it  be  re- 
ceived tvith  thanksgiving :  for  it  is  sanctified 
through  the  word  of  God  and  prayer  (1  Tim. 
4.3-4).  This  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  was  a  bitter  pill 
to  the  ascetics.  In  their  creed,  what  was  pleasant 
and  what  was  right  were  contraries.  That  a  thing 
was  pleasant  was  enough  to  damn  it.  The  origin 
of  the  wide-spread  aversion  to  these  "creatures  of 
God",  indeed,  went  back  to  prehistoric  times, 
to  the  savage  conception  of  tabu.  This  supersti- 
tion had  largely,  though  not  altogether,  died  out 
among  civilized  peoples;  but  not  so  the  obser- 
vances that  had  originated  in  it.  These  persisted 
as  habits,  and  new  reasons  were  found  for  them; 
and  these  new  reasons  systematized,  and  thus 
multiplied,  the  original  prohibitions.  Tabu,  for 
examj^le,  applied  to  the  flesh  of  but  few  animals ; 
but  ascetics  refrained  from  all  meat,  on  the  new 
ground  that  every  animal  had  a  spirit,  and  that 
to  eat  flesh  was  to  incorporate  in  oneself  this  in- 
ferior and  irrational  soul;  or  on  the  ground  that 
human  souls  at  death  often  passed  into  the  bodies 
of  animals,  and  that  to  eat  the  animal  was,  there- 
fore, to  eat  a  human  being, — perhaps  even  a  dear 
friend  or  relative;  or  on  the  ground  that  the  act 
of  begetting  is  unclean,  and  its  offspring  always 
unclean,  and  that  men  ought  not  to  add  this  un- 
cleanness  of  animals  to  their  own  native  unclean- 
ness. 

Marriage  likewise  fell  under  the  ban,  on  various 
grounds. 

Wine  was  thought  to  have  a  soul  or  spirit  by 
which    intoxication    was    caused, — "the    demon 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  137 

rum",  and  this  inferior  soul  must  not  be  admitted 
into  union  with  the  human  soul. 

These  were  the  three  great  tabus  common  to 
almost  all  ascetics, — meat,  marriage,  wine;  to 
which  each  cult  added  its  particular  tabus, — as 
the  Pythagoreans,  beans.  Against  these  three 
were  directed  the  fiercest  assaults.  These  three, 
— wine,  women,  meat, — were,  to  ascetics,  the 
fountain-heads  of  evil,  the  poison  of  the  spirit's 
life,  the  deadly  trinity,  the  insurmountable  bar- 
riers to  God,  the  ministers  of  animality,  decay, 
and  death. 

Now  nothing  is  more  original  about  the  Gospel, 
as  first  preached,  than  that  Christ's  pregnant  re- 
vival and  fortification  of  religion  was,  both  by  ex- 
ample and  precept,  not  only  free  from  these 
asceticisms,  but  hostile  to  them.  The  Gospel  rec- 
ognized all  the  natural  institutions  of  society  and 
the  natural  instincts  of  the  body,  and  bestowed 
its  blessing  on  them;  they  are  good  gifts  of  God, 
for  useful  service,  for  innocent  enjoyment, — in 
their  own  place,  in  due  measure.  Jesus  drank 
wine.  Jesus  ate  meat.  Jesus  did  not  marry,  but 
''he  adorned  and  beautified  with  his  presence  and 
first  miracle"  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana  of 
Galilee.  Jesus  was  no  ascetic ;  he  endured,  rather, 
the  lying  reproach  of  a  glutton  and  a  wine-bibber 
(Mat.  11.19;  Luke  7.34).  If  Jesus,  like  John  the 
Baptist,  had  not  drunk  wine,  they  could  not  have 
called  him  a  wine-bibber.  He  knew  it.  And, 
knowing  it,  he  drank  wine.  If  he  had  fasted,  like 
John  and  his  disciples,  they  could  not  have  called 
him  a  glutton.    He  knew  it.    And,  knowing  it,  he 


138  THE  CHURCH 

fasted  not,  nor  his  disciples ;  but  ate  and  enjoyed 
the  food  that  was  set  before  him.  Evil  men  might 
misrepresent  his  example ;  weak  men  might  abuse 
it,  to  their  own  undoing.  But  Jesus  lived  and 
moved  and  wrought,  a  man  among  men,  the  norm 
and  measure  of  a  man  while  the  world  endures. 
That  sweet  reasonableness  of  his,  that  beautiful 
moderation,  that  perfect  sanity,  that  delicate  and 
sensitive  adjustment  of  conflicting  appeals  from 
within  and  from  without,  avoiding  ' '  the  falsehood 
of  extremes",  have  ever  been  the  stumbling  block 
of  the  fanatic  and  the  puzzle  of  the  weak  in  faith ; 
but  unto  them  that  are  exercised  thereby  "Christ 
the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God"  (1 
Cor.  1.24).  And  note  that  it  is  this  ideal  that 
weathers  the  ages.  As  Joubert  says  (quoted  by 
Matthew  Arnold,  Essays  in  Criticisms,  I.  289), 
"The  austere  sects  excite  the  most  enthusiasm  at 
first ;  but  the  temperate  sects  have  always  been  the 
most  durable". 

These  early  ascetics  in  and  about  the  church  had 
many  divisions  and  many  names.  Those  in  the 
church  were  comprehensively  termed  Encratites, 
meaning  the  Continent,  or  Temperance  People. 
The  Encratites  that  made  much  of  using  water 
instead  of  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  were  specifi- 
cally known  as  Aquarians,  Watermen.  Now 
these  Encratites  were  not  content  with  being 
tolerated,  but  aspired  to  make  the  Church  over  on 
their  own  narrow  unscriptural  lines.  Had  they  suc- 
ceeded, it  would  have  been  reduced  to  a  fanatical 
sect,  to  perish,  like  all  the  rest.  But,  when  the 
Church  had  taken  their  measure,  and  seen  its  own 


THE  PEIMITIVE  CHURCH  139 

peril,  it  set  its  face  uncompromisingly  against 
them.  Some  of  its  polemical  measures,  sad  to  say, 
savored  of  the  crael  spirit  of  the  times  rather  than 
of  the  Gospel.  Such  was  the  Code  of  Theodosius 
(382  A.  D.),  which  made  Aquarians  liable  to  death. 
In  extenuation  we  should  remember,  not  only  the 
age,  but  also  the  fact  that  the  Church  had  been 
fighting  for  its  life  against  them  of  its  own  house- 
hold. In  all  conscience,  it  had  made  generous 
enough  concessions  to  ascetic  principle  and  prac- 
tice,— far  too  generous, — in  the  place  and  honor 
it  accorded  to  the  monastic  life.  Any  ascetic  was 
welcome  to  practice  his  vocation,  under  the  bene- 
diction of  the  Church, — yes,  and  with  double 
honor, — as  long  as  he  used  this  liberty  in  sub- 
jection to  the  Church  and  in  deference  to  its 
larger  liberty,  not  making  his  way  an  ultimatum 
of  salvation  for  others. 

Through  this  long  and  bitter  conflict  the  Church 
vindicated  the  human  body  as  a  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  (1  Cor.  6.19),  having  its  rights  and  its 
honor;  whose  lawful  privileges  included  even 
sensuous  gratifications,  in  their  measure  and 
place.  Wine,  meat,  and  marriage  were  vindicated 
as  good  gifts  of  God,  for  man's  use  and  enjoy- 
ment, to  be  received  in  gratitude  and  loyalty  to 
Him  whose  creatures  they  are. 


CHAPTER   n 

THE   FATHEES 

Ikenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  Saint  and  Martyr, 
before  200  A.  D.  He  had  known  men  who  had 
known  St.  John. — "Therefore  do  these  men 
[Ebionite  heretics]  reject  the  commixture  of  the 
heavenly  wine  [in  allusion  to  the  mixture  of  water 
in  the  eucharistic  cup,  as  practised  in  those  prim- 
itive times],  and  wish  it  to  be  of  water  of  the 
world  only,  not  receiving  God,  so  as  to  have  union 
with  him". — Irenaeus  against  Heresies,  Book 
V.  1.3. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  earliest  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,  wrote  a  work  called  The  Instructor,  in 
which  he  discusses  practical  problems  of  the 
Christian's  life.  Chapter  II.  of  Book  II.  is  *'0n 
Drinking",  and  the  following  extracts  will  show 
how  this  early  witness  of  the  faith,  who  was  born 
about  150  A.  D.,  regarded  this  matter: 

"The  natural,  temperate,  and  necessary  bev- 
erage, therefore,  for  the  thirsty  is  water. 

"I  therefore  admire  those  who  have  adopted 
an  austere  life,  and  who  are  fond  of  water,  the 
medicine  of  temperance,  and  flee  as  far  as  possible 
from  wine,  shunning  it  as  they  would  the  danger 
of  fire. 

' '  But  towards  evening,  about  supper- time,  wine 
may  be  used,  when  we  are  no  longer  engaged  in 
more  serious  readings.    Then  also  the  air  becomes 

140 


THE  FATHERS  141 

colder  than  it  is  during  the  day ;  so  that  the  falling 
temperature  requires  to  be  nourished  by  the  in- 
troduction of  heat.  .  .  .  Those  who  are  al- 
ready advanced  in  life  may  partake  more  cheer- 
fully of  the  draught,  to  warm  by  the  harmless 
medicine  of  the  vine  the  chill  of  age.  For  old 
men's  passions  are  not,  for  the  most  part,  stirred 
to  such  agitation  as  to  drive  them  to  the  ship- 
wreck of  drunkenness.  .  .  .  But  to  them  also 
let  the  limit  of  their  potations  be  the  point  up 
to  which  they  keep  their  reason  unwavering,  their 
memory  active,  and  their  body  unmoved  and  un- 
shaken by  wine. 

*'It  has  therefore  been  well  said,  'A  joy  of  the 
soul  and  heart  was  wine  created  from  the  begin- 
ning, when  drunk  in  moderate  sufficiency'.  And 
it  is  best  to  mix  the  wine  with  as  much  water 
as  possible.  .  .  .  For  both  are  works  of  God, 
and  so  the  mixture  of  both,  of  water  and  of  wine, 
conduces  together  to  health,  because  life  consists 
of  what  is  necessary  and  what  is  useful  [neces- 
sities and  luxuries].  With  water,  then,  which  is 
the  necessary  of  life,  and  to  be  used  in  abundance, 
there  is  also  to  be  mixed  the  useful.     .     .     . 

"With  reason,  therefore,  our  Instructor,  in  his 
solicitude  for  our  salvation,  forbids  us,  'Drink  not 
wine  to  drunkenness'.     .... 

"For  if  he  [Christ]  made  water  wine  at  the 
marriage,  he  did  not  give  permission  to  get 
drunk.     . 

"It  is  agreeable,  therefore,  to  right  reason,  to 
drink  on  account  of  the  cold  of  winter  .  .  .  ;  and 
on  other  occasions  as  a  medicine  for  the  intestines. 


142  THE  CHURCH 

.  .  .  We  must  not  therefore  trouble  ourselves 
to  procure  [here  follows  a  long  list  of  imported 
costly  wines].  For  the  temperate  drinker  one 
wine  suffices,  the  product  of  the  cultivation  of  the 
one  God.  For  why  should  not  the  wine  of  their 
own  country  satisfy  men's  desires,  unless  they 
were  to  import  water  also,  like  the  foolish  Per- 
sian kings?     . 

"Haste  in  drinking  is  a  practice  injurious  to 
the  partaker.  Do  not  haste  to  mischief,  my  friend. 
Your  drink  is  not  being  taken  from  you.  It  is 
yours,  and  it  will  wait  for  you.     . 

' '  In  what  manner  do  you  think  the  Lord  drank, 
when  he  became  man  for  our  sakes?  Was  it  not 
with  decorum  and  propriety?  Was  it  not  delib- 
erately? For  rest  assured  he  also  himself  par- 
took of  wine ;  for  he  too  was  man.  And  he  blessed 
the  wine,  saying,  'Take,  drink:  this  is  my  blood', 
,  the  blood  of  the  vine.  And  that  he  who 
drinks  ought  to  observe  moderation  he  clearly 
showed  by  what  he  taught  at  feasts.  For  he  did 
not  teach,  affected  by  wine.  And  that  it  was  wine 
which  was  the  thing  blessed,  he  showed  again, 
when  he  said  to  his  disciples,  'I  will  not  drink 
of  the  fruit  of  this  vine,  till  I  drink  it  with  you 
in  the  kingdom  of  my  Father'.  But  that  it  was 
wine  which  was  drunk  by  the  Lord,  he  tells  us 
again,  when  he  spake  concerning  himself,  .  .  . 
*For  the  son  of  man',  he  says,  'came,  and  they  say, 
Behold,  a  glutton  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend  of 
publicans'.  Let  this  be  held  fast  by  us  against 
those  that  are  called  Encratites"  [total  abstain- 
ers   who  condemned  wine]. 


THE  FATHERS  143 

Then  Clement  tells  how  the  women  affected 
drinking  from  a  special  cup  with  a  dainty  narrow 
mouth,  which  obliged  them  to  throw  their  heads 
back,  exposing  their  necks.  But  even  so,  Clement 
says,  ''"We  have  not  prohibited  drinking  from  ala- 
bastra"  [the  aforesaid  cups].  All  he  asked  was 
that  women  be  careful,  and  not  excite  remark  or 
attention,  in  their  public  drinking. 

In  the  same  chapter  he  alludes  to  the  use  of 
wine  in  the  Eucharist:  "As  wine  is  mixed  with 
water,  so  is  the  Spirit  with  man.  And  the  one, 
the  mixture  of  wine  and  water,  nourishes  to  faith ; 
while  the  other,  the  Spirit,  conducts  to  im- 
mortality". 

Clement's  position,  then,  amounts  to  this, — 
wine  is  a  good  gift  of  our  kind  Father.  It  should 
be  used  temperately;  some  do  better  to  abstain 
from  it  altogether. 

And  one  circumstance  in  these  utterances, — all 
of  them,  be  it  remembered,  in  the  same  discourse, 
— is  noteworthy,  for  it  illustrates  a  literary  habit 
of  the  ancients,  of  importance  in  our  study  of 
their  attitude  to  wine.  Clement  commends  those 
who  shun  wine  as  they  would  fire.  This  looks  like 
an  unqualified  condemnation,  and  in  a  modern 
writer  it  would  be  so.  But  not  in  Clement;  for 
only  a  few  minutes  later  he  is  praising  wine  as 
''a  joy  of  the  heart  and  soul",  "a  work  of  God" 
equally  with  water,  ''conducive  to  health",  as 
both  drunk  and  blessed  by  Christ;  and  he  con- 
demns "those  that  are  called  Encratites"  for 
condemning  wine.  The  point  is  here :  the  ancients 
often  expressed  themselves  absolutely,  when  they 


144  THE  CHURCH 

intended  their  utterance  to  be  understood  with  a 
quaUfication.  Sometimes  the  qualification  follows 
after  an  interval ;  sometimes  it  is  left  to  the  good 
sense  of  the  reader. 

Cyprian  of  Carthage,  Bishop,  Saint,  Martyr 
(200-258  A.  D.).— In  his  62nd  Epistle,  he  con- 
demns those  who  used  water  for  wine  in  the  Eu- 
charist; and  the  alcoholic  nature  of  this  wine  he 
makes  unmistakable. 

' '  Nothing  must  be  done  by  us  but  what  the  Lord 
first  did  on  our  behalf,  as  that  the  cup  which  is 
offered  in  remembrance  of  him  should  be  offered 
mingled  with  wine." 

"The  Lord  offered  bread  and  the  cup  mixed 
with  wine." 

''Whence  it  appears  that  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  not  offered,  if  there  be  no  wine  in  the  cup". 

"The  Holy  Spirit  also  is  not  silent  in  the 
Psalms  on  the  sacrament  of  this  thing,  when  he 
makes  mention  of  the  Lord's  cup  and  says  (Ps. 
23.5),  'Thy  inebriating  cup,  how  excellent  it  is!' 
Now  the  cup  which  inebriates  is  surely  mingled 
with  wine,  for  water  cannot  inebriate  anybody." 

"But  how  perverse  and  contrary  it  is  that,  al- 
though the  Lord  at  the  marriage  made  wine  of 
water,  we  should  make  water  of  wine!" 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  are  a  collection 
of  ecclesiastical  regulations  in  eight  books,  the 
last  of  which  concludes  with  the  eighty-five 
"Canons  of  the  Holy  Apostles".  The  Constitu- 
tions were  a  spurious  compilation,  ascribed  to  the 
Apostles,  but  put  together  in  the  4th  century.  Yet 
they  are  valuable  as  a  record  of  the  order,  dis- 


THE  FATHERS  145 

cipline,  and  views  of  the  Church  at  the  time,  and 
some  of  their  regulations  go  back  to  a  very  early 
date  indeed. 

Number  44,  of  Book  VIIL,  is  ''Concerning 
Drunkards".  "Wlien  invited  to  the  memorials  of 
the  faithful  departed,  this  Constitution  warns 
presbyters  and  deacons  to  be  sober:  "We  say 
this,  not  that  they  are  not  to  drink  at  all,  other- 
wise it  would  be  to  the  reproach  of  what  God 
has  made  for  cheerfulness,  but  that  they  be  not 
disordered  with  wine.  For  the  Scripture  does  not 
say, '  Do  not  drink  wine ' ;  but  what  says  it  ?  '  Drink 
not  wine  to  drunkenness';  and  again,  'Thorns 
spring  up  in  the  hand  of  the  drunkard'.  Nor  do 
we  say  this  only  to  those  of  the  clergy,  but  also 
to  every  lay  Christian,  upon  whom  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  called.  For  to  them  also 
it  is  said,  'Who  hath  woe?  Who  hath  sorrow? 
Who  hath  uneasiness?  Who  hath  babbling?  Who 
hath  red  eyes?  Who  hath  wounds  without  cause? 
Do  not  these  things  belong  to  those  that  tarry 
long  at  the  wine,  and  that  go  to  seek  where  drink- 
ing-meetings  are?'  " 

Number  53  of  the  Apostolical  Canons  reads: 
"If  any  bishop,  presbyter,  or  deacon  does  not  on 
festival  days  partake  of  flesh  or  wine,  from  an 
abhorrence  of  them  [that  is,  from  conscientious 
scruples],  and  not  out  of  religious  restraint,  let 
him  be  deposed,  as  being  seared  in  his  own  con- 
science, and  being  the  cause  of  offence  to  many." 

Athanasius  the  Great,  Father  of  Orthodoxy, 
Bishop,  Saint,  and  first  of  the  four  great  Greek 
Doctors;  293-373  A.  D.— 


146  THE  CHURCH 

In  his  History  of  the  Arians  (Part  II.  13),  he 
relates  with  horror  the  cruelty  of  Gregory,  his 
rival  in  the  see  of  Alexandria,  in  that  ''when  the 
widows  and  other  mendicants  had  received  alms, 
he  commanded  what  had  been  given  them  to  be 
taken  away,  and  the  vessels  in  which  they  carried 
their  oil  and  wine  to  be  broken".  Wine,  then,  was 
a  part  of  the  provision  that  the  Church  bestowed 
on  its  indigent. 

Basil,  the  Great,  Bishop,  Saint,  one  of  the  four 
great  Greek  Doctors;  330-379  A.  D.— 

"Their  heresy  is,  as  it  were,  an  offshoot  of  the 
Marcionites,  abominating,  as  they  do,  marriage, 
refusing  wine,  and  calling  God's  creature  [wine] 
polluted"  (Letter  99.47). 

An  entire  Homily  of  Basil's,  No.  XIV.,  of  those 
on  moral  topics,  is  directed  against  drunkards. 
With  all  allowance  for  exaggeration  on  the  part 
of  the  pulpit  orator,  the  scenes  described  in  this 
Homily,  and  here  and  there  throughout  patristic 
literature,  indicate  that  drunkenness  was  much 
more  prevalent  throughout  Greek  and  Latin  so- 
ciety in  those  centuries  than  it  is  in  any  country 
of  Christendom  today.  The  Church's  tolerance  of 
drinking,  yes,  its  praise  of  wine  when  used  in 
moderation,  was  in  the  face  of  a  provocation  to 
extreme  language  and  extreme  measures  such  as 
we  find  nowhere  now.  But,  with  all  this  tempta- 
tion to  extremes,  the  Church  never  failed  to  make 
the  distinction  between  the  use  and  abuse  of  drink, 
praising  the  one  as  cordially  as  it  condemned  the 
other. 

This  "Homily  against  Drunkards"  tells  how  on 


THE  FATHERS  147 

Easter  Day  certain  wanton  women  of  Caesarea 
started  dancing,  and  singing  indecent  songs,  and 
drinking,  in  the  Basilica  (or  Church)  of  the 
Martyrs,  and  urged  the  young  men  to  join  them 
in  this  profanation  of  a  holy  place  and  a  holy 
day.  Too  many  accepted  their  invitation,  among 
them  even  men  of  high  rank:  "Sorrowful  sight 
for  Christian  eyes!  A  man  in  the  prime  of  life, 
of  powerful  frame  [everybody  in  the  congrega- 
tion must  have  recognized  the  description],  of 
high  rank  in  the  army,  is  carried  furtively  home, 
because  he  cannot  stand  up  and  use  his  feet.  A 
man  who  ought  to  be  a  terror  to  our  enemies  is 
a  laughing-stock  to  the  lads  in  the  streets.  He  is 
smitten  down  by  no  sword, — slain  by  no  foe.  A 
military  man  in  the  bloom  of  manhood,  the  prey 
of  wine,  and  ready  to  suffer  any  fate  his  foes 
may  choose !  Drunkenness  is  the  ruin  of  reason ; 
— it  is  premature  old  age;  it  is  temporary  death. 

"What  are  drunkards  but  the  idols  of  the 
heathen,  since  they  have  eyes  and  see  not,  and  ears 
and  hear  not?" 

Can  we  imagine  today  a  lascivious  and  drunken 
debauch  of  abandoned  women,  participated  in,  not 
only  by  gilded  youth,  but  by  men  high  in  the 
Government  and  in  business,  on  an  Easter  morn- 
ing, in  or  about  a  parish  church?  It  is  unthink- 
able. Yet  that  is  what  happened  in  Caesarea,  in 
Basil's  Day. 

For  all  that,  in  this  same  Homily,  Basil,  in  the 
very  torrent  of  his  wrath,  observes  a  just  dis- 
crimination. "Wine",  he  says,  "the  gift  of  God 
to  the  sober  for  the  relief  of  their  infirmity,  has 


148  THE  CHURCH 

now  been  made  an  instrument  of  lasciviousness  to 
the  intemperate.  ...  As  water  is  the  foe 
of  fire,  so  too  much  wine  extinguishes  the  reason." 
It  is  not  wine  that  is  at  fault;  it  is  the  "too 
much". 

Ambrose,  Saint,  Bishop,  and  one  of  the  four 
Great  Latin  Doctors,  340-397  A.  D.— 

This  Saint  dissuades  from  wine,  and  recommends 
water.  He  declares  that  the  "divine  law — in  the 
very  beginning — gave  the  springs  for  drink. — 
After  the  Flood,  the  just  man  found  wine  a  source 
of  temptation  to  him.  Let  us  then  use  the  natu- 
ral drink  of  temperance,  and  would  that  we  all 
were  able  to  do  so".  Yet,  even  so,  he  admits 
wine:  "Because  we  are  not  all  strong,  the  Apos- 
tle says,  'Use  a  little  wine,  because  of  thy  fre- 
quent infirmities'."  Then  he  goes  on  to  enumerate 
the  ancient  worthies,  like  Daniel  and  Judith,  who 
on  special  occasions  nourished  their  resolution  on 
water,  not  wine.  This  is  in  Letter  LXIIL,  27,  28. 
It  is  not  alone  abstinence  from  wine  that  St. 
Ambrose  is  recommending,  but  also  rigorous  fast- 
ing. Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  our  Lord's  convert- 
ing water  into  wine ;  also  he  used  the  mixed  chalice 
in  the  Eucharist;  so  that  we  must  look  on  his 
recommendation  of  water  as  a  beverage  as  a 
counsel  of  perfection.  This  is  the  more  probable 
from  the  way  he  speaks  of  the  same  subject  in 
his  "Duties  of  the  Clergy",  Book  L,  Chapter  20. 
He  there  advises,  not  commands,  the  clergy  "to 
avoid  the  banquets  of  strangers",  because  they 
"engross  one's  attention,  and  soon  produce  a  love 
of  feasting.    .    .    .    One's  glass,  too,  even  against 


THE  FATHERS  149 

one's  will,  is  filled  time  after  time.  .  .  .  When 
one  rises  sober  [at  home],  at  any  rate  one's  pres- 
ence need  not  be  condemned  by  the  insolence  of 
another".  This  is  not  the  way  a  man  speaks  who 
thinks  that  even  the  first  glass  is  a  sin. 

Jerome,  Saint,  one  of  the  four  Great  Latin 
Doctors,  author  of  the  Vulgate;  340-420  A.  D.— 

In  his  XXII.  Letter,  on  a  state  of  virginity,  he 
savagely  condemns  wine,  urging  the  virgin,  the 
spouse  of  Christ,  to  avoid  it  as  she  would  poison 
(Section  8).  This  is  an  expression  of  Jerome's 
fanatical  asceticism,  which,  three  paragraphs 
later,  declares,  "A  rumbling  and  empty  stomach 
and  fevered  lungs  .  .  .  are  indispensable  as 
means  to  the  preservation  of  chastity";  and  in 
the  17th  advises  the  virgin,  ''Let  your  companions 
be  women  pale  and  thin  with  fasting".  Thirty 
years  later  Jerome  wrote  another  letter.  No. 
CXXX.,  on  the  same  subject,  which  is  much 
milder.  The  asceticism  recommended  is  not  so 
severe.  There  is  nothing  about  the  virtue  of  "a 
rumbling,  empty  stomach  and  fevered  lungs ' ',  nor 
about  choosing  companions  "pale  and  thin  with 
fasting".  Nor  is  there  a  single  word  against 
wine.    Years  had  taught  the  writer  moderation. 

Chrysostom,  the  greatest  preacher  in  the  his- 
tory of  Christianity;  Bishop,  Saint,  Martyr  (vir- 
tually) ;  one  of  the  Four  Great  Greek  Doctors ; 
347-407  A.  D.— 

Chrysostom,  too,  exalted  and  practised  the  as- 
cetic element  in  religion.    Yet,  he  says, — 

"Shun  excess  and  drunkenness  and  gluttony. 
For  God  gave  meat  and  drink,  not  for  excess,  but 


150  THE  CHURCH 

for  nourishment.  For  it  is  not  the  wine  that  pro- 
duces drunkenness;  for,  if  that  were  the  case, 
everybody  would  needs  be  drunken". — St.  Chry- 
sostom.  Homily  XX.  on  Second  Corinthians. 

Note  those  last  words, — ''everybody  would 
needs  be  drunken";  for  they  show  that  the  drink- 
ing of  alcoholic  wine  was  universal,  with  no 
censure  from  Chrysostom. 

"Not  that  to  drink  wine  is  shameful.  God  for- 
bid! For  such  precepts  belong  to  heretics". — 
St.  Chrysostom,  Concerning  the  Statues,  Hom- 
ily 1.7. 

''Timothy  had  overthrown  the  strength  of  his 
stomach  by  fasting  and  water-drinking.  Paul, 
having  said  before,  'Drink  no  longer  water',  then 
brings  forward  his  counsel  as  to  the  drinking  of 
wine". — Concerning  the  Statues,  Homily  1.8. 

"For  wine  was  given  us  by  God,  not  that  we 
might  be  drunken,  but  that  we  might  be  sober. 
.  It  is  the  best  medicine,  when  it  has  the 
best  moderation  to  direct  it.  The  passage  before 
us  [Paul's  advice  to  Timothy  to  'drink  a  little 
wine']  is  useful  also  against  heretics,  who  speak 
evil  of  God's  creatures;  for,  if  it  [wine]  had  been 
among  the  number  of  things  forbidden,  Paul 
would  not  have  permitted  it,  nor  would  have  said 
it  was  to  be  used.  And  not  only  against  the 
heretics,  but  against  the  simple  ones  among  our 
brethren,  who,  when  they  see  any  persons  dis- 
gracing themselves  from  drunkenness,  instead  of 
reproving  such,  blame  the  fruit  given  them  by 
God,  and  say,  'Let  there  be  no  wine'.  We  should 
say  then  in  answer  to   such,  'Let  there  be  no 


THE  FATHERS  151 

drunkenness;  for  wine  is  the  work  of  God,  but 
drunkenness  is  the  work  of  the  devil.  Wine  makes 
not  drunkenness;  but  intemperance  produces  it. 
Do  not  accuse  that  which  is  the  workmanship  of 
God  [wine],  but  accuse  the  madness  of  a  fellow- 
mortaL  Otherwise  you  .  .  .  are  treating 
your  Benefactor  with  contempt'. 

"When,  therefore,  we  hear  men  saying  such 
things,  we  should  stop  their  mouths ;  for  it  is  not 
the  use  of  wine,  but  the  want  of  moderation,  that 
produces  drunkenness,  that  root  of  all  evils. 
Wine  was  given  to  restore  the  body's  weakness, 
not  to  overturn  the  soul's  strength.  .  .  .  For 
what  is  a  more  wretched  thing  than  drunkenness ! 
The  drunken  man  is  a  living  corpse. — Concerning 
the  Statues.     Homily  I.  11-12. 

''For  instance,  I  hear  many  say,  when  these 
excesses  hapi3en  [women's  getting  drunk  and 
shaming  themselves  in  public],  'Would  there  were 
no  wine'.  0  folly,  0  madness!  When  other  men 
sin,  do  you  find  fault  with  God's  gifts?  And 
what  great  madness  is  this  1  AVhat !  Did  the  wine, 
0  man,  produce  this  evil?  Not  the  wine,  but  the 
intemperance  of  such  as  take  an  evil  delight  in  it. 
Say  then,  'Would  there  were  no  drunkenness,  no 
luxury';  but,  if  you  say,  'Would  there  were  no 
wine',  you  will  say,  going  on  by  degrees,  'Would 
there  were  no  steel,  because  of  the  murderers ;  no 
nights,  because  of  the  thieves ;  no  light,  because  of 
the  informers;  no  women,  because  of  adulteries'; 
and,  in  a  word,  you  will  destroy  everything.  But 
do  not  so;  for  this  is  of  a  satanical  mind.  Do 
not  find  fault  with  the  wine,  but  with  the  drunk- 


152  THE  CHURCH 

enness.  And,  when  you  have  found  this  self-same 
man  sober,  sketch  out  all  his  unseemliness,  and 
say  to  him,  'Wine  was  given  that  we  might  be 
cheerful,  not  that  we  might  behave  ourselves  un- 
seemly; that  we  might  laugh,  not  that  we  might 
be  a  laughing-stock;  that  we  might  be  healthy,  not 
that  we  might  be  diseased ;  that  we  might  correct 
the  weakness  of  our  body,  not  cast  down  the  might 
of  our  soul.'  .  .  .  "It  is  not  possible,  with 
drunkenness,  to  see  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  'Be 
not  deceived',  it  is  said,  'no  drunkards,  no  revilers, 
shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God'." — St.  Chrysos- 
tom,  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  Homily 
LVII.  5-6. 

Augustine,  Saint,  Bishop;  the  greatest  of  the 
Doctors,  Latin  and  Greek ;  and  the  greatest  intel- 
lectual influence  that  has  ever  arisen  in  the 
Church;  354-430  A.  D.— 

In  his  Treatise  "On  the  Morals  of  the  Mani- 
chaeans",  XVI.  44,  he  speaks  of  wine  in  these 
friendly  terms:  "Who  does  not  know  that  wine 
becomes  purer  and  better  by  age?  Nor  is  it,  as 
you  think,  more  tempting  to  the  destruction  of 
the  senses,  but  rather  is  it  more  useful  for  invig- 
orating the  body; — only  let  there  be  moderation, 
which  ought  to  control  everything.  The  senses 
are  sooner  destroyed  by  new  wine.  When  the 
must  has  been  only  a  short  time  in  the  vat,  and 
has  begun  to  ferment,  it  makes  those  who  look 
down  into  it  fall  headlong,  affecting  their  brain, 
— And,  as  regards  health,  everyone  knows  that 
bodies  are  swollen  up  and  injuriously  distended 
by  new  wine". 


THE  FATHERS  153 

In  his  "Eeply  to  Faustus  the  Manichaean", 
Book  XX.  13,  St.  Augustine  asks,  "How  can 
Faustus  think  that  we  resemble  the  Manichaeans 
in  attaching  sacredness  to  bread  and  wine,  when 
they  consider  it  sacrilege  to  taste  wine?  They  ac- 
knowledge their  god  in  the  grape,  but  not  in  the 
cup.  .  .  .  AVhat  is  not  consecrated,  though 
it  is  bread  and  wine,  is  only  nourishment,  or  re- 
freshment, with  no  sacredness  about  it;  although 
we  bless  and  thank  God  for  every  gift,  bodily  as 
well  as  spiritual". 

''Indeed,  how  great  is  this  perversion, — to  con- 
sider wine  as  the  gall  of  the  princes  of  darkness, 
and  permit  grapes  to  be  eaten"! — On  the  Morals 
of  the  Manichaeans,  XVI.  44. 

''For  they  [the  Manichaean  Catharists]  do  not 
even  drink  wine,  declaring  it  to  be  the  gall  of  the 
princes  of  darkness,  while  they  eat  the  grapes; 
nor  do  they  sup  any  must  or  fresh  wine"  (De 
Haeres.  XLVI).* 

SUMMAEY   OF   PATKISTIC   EVIDENCE 

The  testimony  cited  from  the  Fathers  on  wine 
is  far  from  complete ;  but  it  is  representative  and 
sufficient.  It  shows  that  the  New  Testament  use 
of  'wdne  in  the  Holy  Communion  was  continued, 
and  in  the  later  period  was  universal.  AVliere 
there  was  a  departure  from  this  practice,  as  in 
the  instances  cited  by  Prof.  Harnack,  it  was  in 
favor  of  water,  not  of  grape-juice ;  and  water,  by 
universal  consent,  was  not  the  beverage  used  by 

*For  the  last  two  citations  from  St.  Augustine  I  am  indebted  to 
the  Rev.  Thomas  H.  McLaughlin,  D.D.,  of  Seton  Hall  College, 
South  Orange,  New  Jersey. 


154  THE  CHURCH 

our  Lord  in  instituting  the  Feast.  This  brazen 
innovation  was  frowned  on  by  the  Christian  con- 
science, and  died  out. 

Also,  the  Fathers,  with  few  exceptions,  admit 
wine  as  a  beverage,  speaking  of  it  in  the  most 
laudatory  terms.  Those  who  condemn  it,  such  as 
Ambrose  and  Jerome,  do  so,  not  as  wine,  but  as 
a  luxury,  in  their  recommendation  of  a  general 
asceticism.  They  include  in  the  same  condemna- 
tion toothsome  foods. 

For  the  most  part,  those  who  banned  wine  were 
heretics,  who  placed  meat  and  marriage  under  the 
same  anathema. 

The  witness  of  the  Fathers  cannot  be  disposed 
of  by  slurring  them  as  ''creatures  of  an  apostate 
Eome",  as  has  been  attempted.  In  the  first  place, 
Eome  was  not  apostate.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
a  faithful  and  true  witness  of  the  Faith.  In  the 
second  place,  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  the 
Eastern  Church  were  just  as  staunch  defenders 
of  wine,  both  for  sacramental  and  common  use,  as 
those  of  Latin  Christianity.  And,  in  the  third 
place,  even  the  Latin  bishops  were  far  from  being 
''creatures  of  Eome".  Was  Cyprian  a  "crea- 
ture ' '  of  Eome  ?  Yet  he  rebuked  the  use  of  water 
for  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion. 

And  a  significant  fact  is  that  sweet  grape- 
juice,  as  a  beverage,  is  scarce  alluded  to.  It  was 
an  article  of  no  vogue  or  consequence. 

However  we  may  differ  from  their  teaching,  we 
may  not  slur  these  great  champions  of  the  faith, 
many  of  whom  witnessed  a  good  confession  at  the 
stake,  in  the  arena,  by  the  sword,  because  their 
attitude  to  drink  may  not  suit  us, — especially  as. 


THE  FATHERS  155 

in  this  attitude,  tliey  were  at  one  with  apostles, 
prophets,  and  Jesus  Christ  himself. 

It  is  significant,  too,  that  they  never  under- 
stood the  Pauline  principle,  ''If  meat  causeth  my 
brother  to  offend",  etc.,  to  require  abstinence 
from  either  meat  or  wine.  Men,  some  of  them 
men  of  genius,  who  gave  their  lives  to  the  study 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  they  did,  might  be  supposed, 
if  their  judgment  and  conscience  were  even  ordi- 
narily correct,  to  have  a  sound  judgment  in  such 
a  matter.  Yet  they  never  found  in  this  teaching 
of  St.  Paul  what  some  today  find  there.  They 
did  find  in  it  what  the  common-sense  of  all  later 
ages  has  found,  the  duty  of  Christians  to  be  tender 
of  the  mistaken  scruples  and  fleshly  infirmity  of 
their  weak  brethren. 

If  the  New  Testament  Church,  again,  had  used 
grape- juice,  and  the  subsequent  Church  had  dis- 
loyally substituted  fermented  wine,  we  are  puzzled 
at  finding  no  record  of  the  change;  for  surely 
there  must  have  been  a  bitter  contest.  Surely 
there  were  those  who  would  have  resisted  this  un- 
scriptural  novelty  even  unto  death.  Yet  who  were 
they?  Every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  great  and  bitter 
literature  that  the  controversy  must  have  pro- 
voked has  perished, — not  a  syllable  remains.  Yet 
the  effort  to  substitute  grape- juice  for  wine  today, 
in  a  small  portion  of  the  church,  has  given  birth 
to  just  such  a  literature,  so  continuous  and  so  ex- 
tensive that  its  obliteration  is  unthinkable.  Far 
less  important  controversies  have  survived  from 
those  days.  Why  not  this?  We  must  answer, 
"Because  there  was  no  such  controversy";  and 
there  was  not,  because  there  was  no  such  change. 


156  THE  CHURCH 

The  same  wine  was  used  as  had  been  used  from 
the  beginning.  Even  those  who  themselves  re- 
jected wine  as  a  beverage  never  denied  that  Jesus 
and  the  Apostolic  Church  had  used  it. 

The  Christian  Church,  then,  used  wine  before 
it  used  the  Gospels.  It  used  wine  before  the 
Epistles  were  written.  Before  a  word  of  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  was  penned,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  Love  Feast,  whether  at  first  one 
and  the  same  or  two  connected  acts,  were  cele- 
brated with  the  unfailing  use  of  wine,  of  real  wine, 
of  wine  that,  too  largely  used,  intoxicated.  The 
Church  used  wine  thus  because  Jesus  Christ  had 
done  so  himself  and  had  enjoined  all  his  follow- 
ers to  do  the  same,  until  his  "coming  again".  It 
was  Jesus  who,  at  that  sacred  feast,  surrounded 
by  his  twelve  apostles,  raised  high  in  his  ''holy 
and  venerable  hands"  two  goblets  of  wine,  and 
gave  thanks  to  the  Eternal  Father  for  this  fruit 
of  the  vine;  and  then  offered  it  to  all  his  apostles, 
saying,  "Drink  this,  all  you  drink  this".  It  was 
Jesus  Christ  who  said  to  his  disciples,  not  only  to 
the  twelve  apostles  who  were  to  be  the  foundation 
stones  of  the  new  city  of  God,  but  to  all  his  dis- 
ciples to  the  end  of  time, — it  was  Jesus  Christ 
who,  offering  them  an  alcoholic  beverage,  said, 
"Drink";  who  said,  "All  of  you,  drink", — having 
drunk  first  himself; — to  all  his  disciples,  not  to 
the  Twelve  alone;  for  what  else  can  his  words 
mean,  as  he  handed  them  the  cup  of  wine,  "This 
do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me"? 
It  was  an  institution  that  Jesus  was  founding,  not 
a  solemn  farewell  that  he  was  offering  to  his 
closest  friends. 


THE  FATHERS  157 

Jesus  was  no  total  abstainer.  His  twelve  apos- 
tles were  no  total  abstainers.  It  was  not  only  the 
traitor,  who  had  a  devil,  who  drank.  It  was  also 
those  who,  hesitating  at  first,  like  the  homing 
pigeon  just  released,  were  to  be  faithful  unto 
death ;  whose  names  our  churches  bear,  the  round 
world  over. 

And  St.  Paul,  who  came  after,  and  who  left  the 
earliest  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  was  no  total  abstainer.  Alcoholic  wine 
was  to  him  an  integral  part  of  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  primitive  church,  then,  used  this  sacra- 
mental wine  with  its  first  use  of  the  sacrament. 
As  early  as  it  used  water  in  baptism,  it  used  wine 
in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  primitive  church 
thought  that  in  this  it  was  following  the  example 
and  injunction  of  its  Lord.  The  universal  church 
believed  that  Jesus  used  wine  at  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. And  this  belief  of  the  primitive  church  was 
the  unanimous  belief  of  the  church  through  all  the 
ages.  On  much  else  the  church  differed  and 
fought  and  split.  But  on  this  there  was  no  dif- 
ference. If  anything  in  church  history  is  catholic, 
this  is.  Most  held  indeed  that  Jesus  had  mixed 
water  with  the  wine,  after  the  custom  of  the  Jews, 
and  of  the  ancients  generally;  and  this  was  the 
practice  of  the  church.  But  no  one  suggested  that 
he  had  used,  not  wine,  but  unfermented  grape- 
juice.  There  were  heresies  and  schisms  on  many 
matters  of  faith,  practice,  and  tradition.  But 
there  was  none  here.  None  maintained  that  the 
wine  used  by  our  Lord  was  other  than  the  wine 
used  by  the  church. 


158  THE  CHURCH 

The  fact  that  the  church  mixed  the  sacramental 
wine  with  water,  indeed,  indicates  the  nature  of 
the  wine  used.  Would  it  have  required  grape- 
juice  to  be  diluted?  The  tradition  is  correct 
which  refers  this  usage  to  the  example  of  Jesus. 
The  Passover  wine  was  so  diluted  from  time  im- 
memorial; and  Jesus  was  thus  only  following 
ancient  use.  Nor  was  wine  diluted  in  the  Pass- 
over Supper  for  any  mystical  reason.  It  was 
diluted  then  because  it  was  diluted  almost  always, 
as  a  beverage;  as  in  France  today.  To  drink  un- 
diluted wine  was  considered  improper,  as  being 
too  strong. 

The  departures,  of  whatever  sort,  from  the  old 
ways  the  church  condemned.  It  would  stand  no 
trifling  with  a  sacrament  established  by  Christ :  it 
would  tolerate  no  such  implied  slur  on  his  word 
and  ways.  As  the  church  sharply  distinguished 
between  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  marriage  and  of 
meat,  so  it  did  of  drink.  All  three,  it  said,  were 
good  gifts  of  God.  There  might  indeed  be  rea- 
sons which  would  make  it  advisable  for  an  in- 
dividual peculiarly  constituted  to  refrain  from 
any  one  or  from  all  three, — reasons  which  it  in- 
cluded under  the  general  term  of  discipline.  But 
these  occasional  individuals  must  recognize  that 
the  reason  for  their  peculiar  course  was  in  them- 
selves, not  in  others  nor  in  the  thing  refrained 
from.  God  gave  marriage;  God  gave  meat;  God 
gave  wine, — not  to  be  refrained  from,  but  to  be 
used;  and  the  obligatory  use  of  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  a  declaration  by  the  church,  and  an 
admission  by  the  ascetic,  that  such  was  the  case. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE    MIDDLE    AGES 


The  attitude  of  the  primitive  church  toward  wine 
was  the  attitude  of  the  later  church.  Everywhere, 
always,  and  by  all,  was  wine  blessed  and  drunk 
in  the  most  solemn  and  exalted  of  the  church's 
rites, — as  it  had  been  by  its  Founder  and  Lord. 
In  the  name  of  Jesus  was  the  bread  broken.  In 
the  name  of  Jesus  was  the  wine  poured  and  put 
to  the  lips  of  the  faithful  with  the  injunction 
''Drink!"  The  church  thought  it  as  holy  and 
blessed  a  thing  to  say  "Drink"  as  it  did  to  say 
"Eat", — as  good  and  righteous  a  thing  to  drink 
wine  as  to  eat  bread. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  prove  the  hospitable  at- 
titude of  the  Church  toward  drink  during  this 
period,  that  is,  up  to  the  Reformation,  since  no 
one  denies  it.  But  a  few  facts  may  be  cited  in 
illustration. 

St.  Patrick  not  only,  according  to  the  medieval 
legend,  drove  snakes  out  of  Ireland,  but  intro- 
duced whiskey  into  Ireland, — whiskey  and  the  art 
of  its  distillation.  The  medieval  Christian  con- 
science saw  in  this  nothing  unworthy  of  so  saintly 
a  man;  the  chances  are,  in  fact,  that  the  whole 
story  was  invented  to  do  him  honor.  At  least, 
we  may  hope  so.  Now,  to  be  sure,  whiskey  is 
not  wine;  nor  is  it  the  "strong  drink"  of  the 

159 


160  THE  CHURCH 

Scriptures.  But  it  is  much  more  hazardous ;  and 
an  age  that  saw  nothing  wrong  in  whiskey  surely 
would  not  in  wine  or  "strong  drink". 

The  next  significant  fact  is  that  throughout 
western  Christendom  the  most  famous  drink  was 
made  by  monks,  both  wines  and  ales.  The  special 
value  of  the  waters  of  Burton-on-Trent  for  brew- 
ing was  discovered  by  the  neighboring  monks. 
The  malt-house,  indeed,  was  as  indispensable  a 
feature  of  a  monastery  as  the  chapel.  In  medieval 
England  an  "ale"  was  synonymous  with  a  parish 
festival,  at  which  this  was  the  chief  drink.  The 
word  was  frequent  in  composition.  Thus,  there 
were  Whitsun-ales,  clerk  ales,  church-ales,  brid- 
ales  (now  bridals).  The  "bridal"  is  the  bride 
plus  ale,  or  wedding  feast.  The  parish  ales  were 
of  much  ecclesiastical  importance  in  England. 
The  chief  purpose  of  church-  and  of  clerk  (that 
is,  clergy)  -ales  was  to  facilitate  the  collection  of 
parish  dues  or  to  make  an  actual  profit  from  the 
sale  of  the  beverages  by  the  church  wardens. 
These  "ale"  profits  kept  the  parish  church  in  re- 
pair or  were  distributed  as  alms  to  the  poor.  At 
Sygate,  Norfolk,  on  the  gallery  of  the  church  is 
inscribed — 

God  speed  the  plow 

And  give  us  good  ale  enow     .     .     . 

Be  merry  and  glade 

With  good  ale  was  this  work  made. 

On  the  beam  of  a  rood-screen  in  the  church  of 
Thorpe-le-Soken,  Essex,  is  the  following  inscrip- 
tion in  raised  Gothic  letters,  on  a  scroll  held  by 
two  angels — 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES  161 

"This  cost  is  the  bachelers  made  by  ales  thesn 
med". 

The  date  is  about  1480,  Church-ales  were  also 
held  in  honor  of  the  patron  saint.  The  feast  was 
usually  held  in  a  barn  near  the  church  or  in  the 
church-yard.  In  Tudor  times  church-ales  were 
held  on  Sundays.  Gradually  the  parish  ales  were 
limited  to  the  Whitsun  season,  and  these  still  have 
local  survivals.  The  colleges  of  the  Universities 
used  formerly  to  brew  their  own  ales  and  hold 
festivals  known  as  college-ales.  Some  of  these 
ales  are  still  brewed  and  famous,  like  "Chancel- 
lor" at  Queen's  College,  and  "Archdeacon"  at 
Merton  College,  Oxford,  and  ' '  audit  ale ' '  at  Trin- 
ity, Cambridge. 

Lamb-ales  are  still  maintained  at  Kirtlington, 
Oxfordshire,  for  an  annual  feast  at  lamb-shear- 
ing. 

When  the  statues  of  virgins  and  saints  were 
smashed  by  iconoclastic  reformers,  the  irreverent 
figures  carved  on  some  churches  representing 
jovial  participants  in  "ales"  were  not  disturbed. 
The  feelings  of  the  Puritans  were  not  offended 
by  the  figure  of  a  toper  on  the  front  of  a  house 
of  prayer. 

To  the  second  half  of  this  period  belongs  the 
famous  Benedictine  liqueur.  It  continued  to  be 
manufactured  by  the  monks  at  Fecamp,  France, 
on  the  English  Channel,  till  the  French  Revo- 
lution. Since  then  it  has  been  produced  commer- 
cially by  a  secular  company.  The  familiar  legend, 
D.O.M.    (Deo   Optimo   Maximo)    on   the   bottles 


162  THE  CHURCH 

preserves  to  this  day  the  memory  of  the  original 
makers. 

''The  equally  famous  Chartreuse,  made  by  the 
Carthusian  monks  at  Grenoble,  has  been  the  main 
support  of  the  churches,  schools,  hospitals,  etc., 
in  the  villages  round  about.  Since  the  expulsion 
of  these  monks  in  1904,  they  have  continued  the 
manufacture  of  their  liqueur  in  Spain." 

It  is  noteworthy  that  it  was  not  alone  the  sec- 
ular clergy  and  worldly  laity  that  patronized 
drink,  as  in  the  "ales";  the  rigorous  and  ascetic 
"religious",  such  as  the  Carthusians  and  Bene- 
dictines, saw  nothing  in  the  production  or  use  of 
drink  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  ideal. 

n 

Wine  was  enjoined  in  the  Church  at  marriages, 
in  the  Hereford  Missal:  "After  the  Mass  [the 
original  is  Latin],  let  bread,  and  wine,  or  some 
other  good  drink,  be  brought  in  a  small  vessel, 
and  let  all  drink". 

By  the  Sarum  Missal  it  is  enjoined  that  the 
sops  immersed  in  this  wine,  as  well  as  the  liquor 
itself,  and  the  cup  that  contained  it,  should  be 
blest  by  the  priest:  "Let  the  bread  and  wine  or 
some  other  drink  be  blest  in  a  small  vessel,  and 
let  them  taste  it,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  the 
priest  saying  Dominus  vohiscum".  The  form  of 
benediction  ran,  "0  Lord,  bless  this  bread  and 
this  drink  and  this  vessel,  as  thou  didst  bless  the 
five  loaves  in  the  desert  and  the  six  waterpots  in 
Cana  of  Galilee,  that  all  who  drink  out  of  them 
may  be  healthy  and  sober  and  undefiled",  etc. 


THE  MIDDLE  AGES  163 

The  beverage,  on  this  occasion,  was  to  be  drunk 
by  the  bride  and  bridegroom  and  the  rest  of  the 
company. 

The  allusions  to  this  custom  in  our  old  plays 
are  numerous;  as  in  Shakespeare's  Taming  of  the 
Shrew  (III.  2),  where  Petruchio  calls  for  wine, 
gives  a  health,  and,  having  quaffed  off  the  musca- 
del,  throws  the  sops  in  the  sexton's  face. 

The  Compleat  Vintner*  a  poem  of  about  the 
year  1720,  but  voices  the  feelings  of  the  old  church 
and  its  people,  when  it  says, 

'Wliat  priest  can  join  two  lovers'  hands 
But  wine  must  seal  the  marriage  bands? 

As  if  celestial  wine  was  thought 
Essential  to  the  sacred  knot, 
And  that  each  bridegroom  and  his  bride 
Believed  they  were  not  firmly  tied 
Till  Bacchus,  with  the  bleeding  tun, 
Had  finished  what  the  priest  begun. 

It  is  true  that  ale  is  not  wine.  But,  if  the 
Bible  and  the  early  Church  approved  wine,  the 
approval  covered  anything  of  the  sort  no  more 
hazardous  than  wine. 


*Many    of    these    facts    are    frnm    the    article    "Ales",   in    the 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  11th  Edition. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   BEFOEMATION 


The  Reformers  had  nothing  to  object  to  in  the 
attitude  of  the  old  Church  to  drink.  Their  own 
attitude  was  the  same.  These  beverages  were,  to 
them,  as  allowable  as  water  or  milk.  John  Knox 
"had  his  pipe  of  Bordeaux  too,  we  find,  in  that 
old  Edinburgh  house  of  his"  (''The  Hero  as 
Priest",  in  "Heroes  and  Hero-Worship",  by 
Thomas  Carlyle,  toward  the  end).  Now  a  "pipe" 
held  from  a  hundred  to  two  hundred  gallons! 
Calvin,  too,  used  wine:  "Sometimes  in  the  middle 
of  the  day  he  would  suck  an  egg  and  take  a  glass 
of  wine". — Life  of  John  Calvin,  by  Dyer,  page 
436.  His  salary  at  Geneva  included  "two  casks 
of  wine". — Life  of  Calvin,  Paul  Henry  (trans.), 
page  269.  So  did  Luther.  The  latter  indeed  ran 
a  private  brewery,  and  declared  that  as  a  remedy 
for  worry  drink  ranked  next  to  the  Lord's  Prayer 
and  a  good  heart! 

Mrs.  Luther  "at  Wittenberg  .  .  .  brewed, 
as  was  then  the  custom,  their  own  beer". — 
Kostlin's  Life  of  Luther,  page  541. 

"In  the  evening  he  would  say  to  his  pupils  at 
the  supper  table,  'You  young  fellows,  you  must 
drink  the  Elector's  health  and  mine,  the  old 
man's,  in  a  bumper.  We  must  look  for  our  pil- 
lows and  bolsters  in  the  tankard'.    And  in  his 

164 


THE  EEFORMATION  165 

lively  and  merry  entertainments  with  his  friends 
the  *  cup  that  cheers '  was  always  there.  He  could 
even  call  for  a  toast  when  he  heard  bad  news, 
for,  next  to  a  fervent  Lord's  Prayer  and  a  good 
heart,  there  was  no  better  antidote,  he  used  to 
say,  to  care". — Ditto,  page  558. 

Shortly  before  his  death  ' '  a  rich  present  of  wine 
and  fish  had  arrived  from  the  Elector.  Luther 
was  very  merry  with  his  friends". — Ditto,  page 
568. 

' '  He  wrote  to  his  wife  telling  her  he  was  cheer- 
ing himself  with  good  Torgau  beer  and  Rhine 
wine". — Ditto,  page  571. 

From  another  letter  to  his  wife:  ''The  town 
council  gives  me  for  each  meal  half  a  pint  of 
'Eeinfair,  which  is  very  good.  .  .  .  The  wine 
of  the  country  here  is  also  good,  and  Naumburg 
beer  is  very  good. 

Your  loving 

Martin  Luther". — Dit.  p.  574. 
Feb.  15,  1546. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  find  a  single  one 
of  the  Reformation  leaders  who  did  not  drink. 
All  the  heads  of  the  Reformation  in  Eng- 
land drank.  If  any  abstained,  in  those  days, 
it  was  from  reasons  personal  to  himself: 
none  objected  to  drink  on  principle.  The 
differences,  indeed,  between  the  Reformers  and 
the  ancient  Church  were  many  and  grave.  They 
pertained  to  doctrine,  morals,  worship,  discipline. 
But,  as  to  drink,  Catholics  and  Protestants  were 
at  one.  Luther  and  the  Pope  alike  used  it,  and 
alike  thanked  God  for  it.    They  did  not  even  re- 


166  THE  CHURCH 

mark  that  in  this,  at  least,  they  were  agreed.  So 
far  was  disagreement  here  from  their  thoughts 
that  they  did  not  even  remark  its  absence.  No- 
body on  either  side  intimated  that  it  was  wrong 
to  drink.  If  any  one  had,  Luther  and  Pope  would 
both  have  denounced  him  as  a  calumniator  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  the  Church,  of  Jesus  Christ.  Those 
were  days  when  many  strange,  extravagant,  fan- 
tastic, whimsical  notions  were  broached ;  but  never 
this.  The  Eeformation  pursued  its  course  for 
generations  without  discovering  the  sinfulness  or 
general  inexpediency  of  drink. 

Now  let  us  look  at  those  immortal  contributions 
of  Non-Conformity  to  the  English  classics,  ''The 
Pilgrim's  Progress"  and  ''Eobinson  Crusoe"; 
to  which  may  be  added  "Swiss  Family  Eobin- 
son",  by  an  eminent  Swiss  Protestant;  and  Gold- 
smith's "Vicar  of  Wakefield",  by  an  Episco- 
palian. 

Bunyan  was  surely  pious  enough  to  suit  the 
most  exacting.  One  after  the  other,  he  had  given 
up  all  amusements,  even  such  innocent  ones  as 
church-bell  ringing,  and  dancing  on  the  village 
green.  But  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  give  up 
drinking;  and,  what  is  more,  he  represents  Chris- 
tian and  Christiana  as  frequently,  if  not  ordinar- 
ily, drinking,  on  their  way  to  the  Celestial  City, 
and  as  being  helped  on  their  way  by  this  drink. 
Christian's  "good  companions".  Discretion, 
Piety,  Charity,  and  Prudence,  gave  him  "a  bottle 
of  wine",  to  cheer  him  on  his  way.  After  his 
battle  with  Apollyon,  the  spent  fighter  betook 
himself  to  the  bottle  for  refreshment.     In  the 


THE  REFORMATION  167 

*'very  sweet  and  pleasant"  land  of  Benlah,  the 
*' Shining  Ones"  have  ^'no  want  of  corn  and 
wine";  ''rum"  in  Paradise!  Christ  sends  to 
Christiana,  by  the  hand  of  Greatheart,  ''a  bottle 
of  wine".  Gains,  the  holy  inn-keeper,  served 
Christiana  and  her  party  a  noble  repast,  most 
Scriptural  in  character,  a  heave-shoulder,  a  wave- 
breast,  "very  fresh  and  good";  and  "the  next 
they  brought  up  was  a  bottle  of  wine,  red  as 
blood.  So  Gains  said  to  them.  Drink  freely;  this 
is  the  juice  of  the  true  vine,  that  makes  glad  the 
heart  of  God  and  man.  So  they  drank  and  were 
merry".  "The  wine  when  it  is  red"  was,  to  Bun- 
yan,  a  choice  gift  of  God.  On  setting  out  from 
this  hospitable  inn.  Gains  gave  them  more  drink, 
and  they  were  merry  again.  Nor  did  this  pious 
inn-keeper  scruple  to  give  "them  something  to 
drink  by  the  way";  and  that,  even  though  the 
party  included  "Mr.  Feeble-mind"! 

And  Bunyan  saw  nothing  worse  in  "spirits" 
than  in  wine;  and  both  alike  had  their  part  in 
helping  the  pilgrims  on  their  heavenly  journey. 
Mr.  Interpreter  gave  Christiana  ' '  a  little  bottle  of 
spirits",  of  which  she  and  Mercy,  and  probably  the 
children,  drank.  Then  they  set  out;  but  "Chris- 
tiana forgot  to  take  her  bottle  of  spirits  with  her ; 
so  she  sent  her  little  boy  hack  to  fetch  it"!  When 
her  son  James  was  taken  sick,  "his  mother  gave 
him  some  of  that  glass  of  spirits".  Mr.  Fearing, 
it  will  be  remembered,  had  a  hard  time  of  his 
pilgrimage,  but  was  "a  little  encouraged  at  the 
Interpreter's  house".  As  he  was  setting  out,  the 
Lord,  "as  he  did  to  Christian  before,  gave  him 


168  THE  CHURCH 

a  bottle  of  spirits".  When  Mr.  Despondency  was 
in  a  bad  way,  "Christiana  gave  him  some  of  her 
bottle  of  spirits,  for  present  relief". 

The  Puritan  Bunyan  thought  drink  a  real  aid  in 
our  Christian  pilgrimage. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  show  how  in  "Eobinson 
Crusoe"  drink  is  regarded  as  one  of  the  neces- 
sities of  life, — whether  ale  or  wine  or  even,  lit- 
erally, rum.  In  a  brief  and  partial  inspection  I 
have  collated  twenty  passages  of  this  tenor.  It 
no  more  occurred  to  Defoe,  the  Non-Conformist, 
to  question  the  propriety  of  drink  than  of  water 
or  milk  or  food. 

That  pious  and  benevolent  character,  the  Vicar 
of  Waketield,  speaks  thus  kindly  of  the  country 
tavern  (near  the  beginning  of  Chapter  18) :  "I 
retired  to  a  little  ale-house  by  the  roadside,  .  .  . 
the  usual  retreat  of  indigence  and  frugality". 
Toward  the  end  of  this  chapter,  '*I  took  shelter, 
as  fast  as  possible,  in  the  first  ale-house  that  of- 
fered", where  he  and  a  chance  acquaintance 
shared  *'in  a  bowl  of  punch". 

"The  Swiss  Family  Robinson"  is  an  exhibition 
of  Christian  principle  in  actual  practice  amid  most 
primitive  conditions.  It  is  much  later  than  the 
other  two  works;  and  it  represents  the  Protes- 
tantism of  the  Continent.  But  this  Swiss  Prot- 
estant, Jean  Eudolph  Wyss,  is  at  one  with 
Bunyan  and  Defoe  and  Goldsmith  as  to  drink. 
He  tells  how  warm  cocoa-nut  milk  had  fermented 
into  what  Fritz  pronounced   "excellent  wine", 


THE  REFORMATION  169 

which  foamed  like  champagne.  "With  a  warning 
against  excess,  the  father  allowed  his  son  to  drink 
it,  and  himself  drank:  they  ''were  both  invig- 
orated". The  first  supper  that  was  served  in  good 
style  by  Madame  Robinson,  in  the  woods,  ended 
"with  a  bottle  of  the  captain's  Canary  wine". 
On  another  occasion,  the  mother  greeted  her  hus- 
band, after  an  absence,  with  the  joyful  news  of 
the  discovery  of  a  cask  of  Canary  wine,  which  had 
drifted  up  on  the  beach.  Father,  mother,  and  sons 
all  took  turns  at  the  vent-hole  with  straws,  until 
the  boys  had  to  be  checked  for  fear  of  intoxication. 

Medford  rum  (not  covered  by  the  Scriptural 
and  ecclesiastical  sanctions  of  wine  and  "strong 
drink")  was  the  respectable  foundation  on  which 
the  fortunes  of  many  a  pious  Puritan  family  of 
New  England  were  raised. 

The  city  of  Newark,  New  Jersey,  is  said  to  have 
been  the  last  effort  to  build  up  a  theocracy,  or 
Kingdom  of  the  Saints,  in  this  country.  It  is 
therefore  significant  that  among  the  goods  given 
the  Indians  in  payment  of  the  land  were*  "four 
barrels  of  beer",  and  "two  ankers  [that  is,  about 
20  gallons]  of  liquors". 

From  this  town's  early  records  I  extract  the 
following: 

Town  Meeting,  Jan.,  1668. 

Item — Henry  Lyon  is  Chosen  Treasurer  for  the 
Year  Insuing. 

Item — The  Toivn  hath  Chosen  the  sd  Henry 
Lyon,  to  keep  an  Ordinary  for  the  Entertainment 
of  Travellers  and  Strangers,  and  desire  him  to 

*Urquhart'8  Short  History  of  Newark,  page  18, 


170  THE  CHURCH 

prepare  for  it,  as  soon  as  he  can  (N.  J.  Historical 
Society,  Eecords  of  Newark,  vol.  VL  p.  13). 

Now  an  "Ordinary"  was,  a  tavern  or  inn;  of 
which  the  sale  of  liquors  was  an  invariable  fea- 
ture. As  Mr.  Lyon  was  both  town-treasurer  and 
inn-keeper,  no  doubt  the  good  citizens  repaired 
to  the  tavern  to  pay  their  church  dues, — a  part  of 
their  taxes. 

On  page  34,  under  2nd  June,  1670: 

Item — The  Town  Choose  Thomas  Johnson  to 
keep  an  Ordinary  in  the  Town  for  the  Entertain- 
ment of  Strangers,  and  prohibited  all  others  from 
selling  any  Strong  Liquors  by  Retail  under  a  Gal- 
lon, unless  in  case  of  Necessity,  and  that  by  Li- 
cence from  the  Magistrate. 

The  "History  of  the  Oranges",  by  Wickes,  page 
128,  in  telling  of  the  Mountain  Society,  or  Church, 
now  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Orange,  has 
in  the  list  of  subscriptions  toward  the  construction 
of  the  Second  Meeting  House,  in  1753,  these  en- 
tries : 

John  Dod,  a  gallon  of  Bum,  4  s. 

Eleazar  Lamson,  6  quarts  of  Rum,  6  s. 

Thus,  in  a  manner,  the  corner-stone  of  this  ven- 
erable Church,  the  First  Presbyterian  of  Orange, 
was  laid  in  rum. 

Among  the  house-keeping  accounts  of  the  pas- 
tor, for  1759,  are  these  items: 

Cyder  Spirits — [apple-jack?]  3  gallons,  10  5. 
6  d. 

1  Barrel  of  Cyder,  9  s. 

Tobacco,  2  s.  6  d. 

AVhen  his  estate  was  appraised,  it  revealed, 

7  Wine-glasses,  8  s.  9  d. 


THE  REFORMATION  171 

II 

Methodism. — We  have  seen  the  friendly  attitude 
toward  drink  of  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Wyss,  stand- 
ing for  the  Protestantism  of  the  Continent;  of 
John  Knox,  Presbyterian ;  of  John  Bunyan,  Bap- 
tist; of  Goldsmith,  Episcopalian;  of  Defoe,  Non- 
Conformist;  of  the  New  England  Puritan,  Congre- 
gationalist.  It  remains  only  to  inquire  the  atti- 
tude of  the  fathers  of  the  last  of  the  great  Protes- 
tant families, — Methodism. 

As  everybody  knows,  John  Wesley  was  the  pope 
of  Methodism  to  the  day  of  his  death.  He  was 
the  sole  fount  of  authority  for  the  new  Society, 
both  in  doctrine  and  discipline.  His  wide  learn- 
ing, his  holy  zeal,  his  genius  for  organization  made 
him  first  without  a  second  in  the  great  rebirth  of 
religion  among  English-speaking  people:  and,  if 
he  exercised  an  unrivalled  and  unlimited  author- 
ity, it  was  with  the  glad  and  grateful  acquiescence 
of  those  over  whom  he  ruled. 

John  Wesley  was  born  in  1703,  and  died  in 
1791.  He  took  Orders  in  the  Church  of  England, 
and  to  the  end  declared  himself  a  loyal  minister 
of  that  Church.  He  was,  too,  an  Oxford  man,  of 
various  learning. 

In  an  almost  uninterrupted  outpour  of  tongue 
and  pen  for  fifty  years,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there 
is  no  important  phase  of  Christian  belief  and  con- 
duct on  which  John  Wesley  did  not  make  his  mind 
clear, — and  over  and  over  again.  Of  drink  he 
spoke  repeatedly,  and  his  own  behavior  in  the 
matter  he  explains  himself.    What,  then,  did  John 


172  THE  CHURCH 

Wesley,  the  Father  of  Methodism,  say  and  do 
about  drink? 

From  first  to  last  he  denounced  dram-drinking 
and  dram-shops.  At  the  first  Methodist  Confer- 
ence, in  1744,  it  was  resolved  that  preachers  were 
to  speak  ''expressly  and  strongly  against  dram- 
drinking"  (Tyerman's  Life  and  Times  of  John 
Wesley,  vol.  I.  page  446).  Among  the  "Rules  of 
Band  Societies",  in  1744,  the  first  "Direction" 
was  "To  abstain  from  .  .  .  tasting  spirituous 
liquors"  (Tyerman,  vol.  I.  page  464).  In  the  Con- 
ference of  1765,  it  was  declared  that  some  Metho- 
dists "drank  drams  ...  To  remedy  such 
evils,  the  preachers  were  enjoined,  on  no  account, 
.  to  drink  drams  themselves"  (Tyerman, 
vol.  II.  page  540).  In  a  famous  letter  Wesley 
directs  the  itinerant  preacher,  "Touch  no  dram. 
It  is  liquid  fire.  It  is  a  sure,  though  slow,  poison. 
It  saps  the  very  springs  of  life"  (Tyerman,  vol. 
III.  page  44).  In  a  letter  to  a  newspaper,  in  1772, 
he  even  ascribes  the  high  prices  [When  have 
people  not  complained  of  high  prices?]  to  the  con- 
sumption of  so  much  wheat  by  distilleries;  and 
he  advises  that  distilling  be  prohibited  by  law 
(Tyerman,  vol.  III.  page  133) .  The  following  pas- 
sage is  valuable  as  confirming  the  indications  in 
the  previous  passages  of  the  sense  attached  by 
Wesley  to  the  word  "dram".  In  1760  he  wrote, 
"Drams,  or  spirituous  liquors,  are  liquid  fire" 
(Tyerman,  vol.  II.  page  390).  "Drams"  are,  for 
Wesley,  what  they  are  for  the  dictionary,  "a  drink 
of  spirits;  as,  a  dram  of  brandy", — the  Century 
Dictionary.    And  a  dram-shop  is,  by  the  same  au- 


THE  REFORMATION  173 

thority,  "A  place  where  spirits  are  sold  in  drams 
or  other  small  quantities,  chiefly  to  be  drunk  at 
the  counter". 

Wesley's  Journal, — March  12,  1743, — records 
that  two  members  were  expelled  from  the  Society 
''for  retailing  spirituous  liquors". 

Did  he  feel  the  same  way  about  wine  and  beer? 

In  the  year  1763,  when  he  was  60  years  old, 
Wesley  returned  the  following  carefully  consid- 
ered answer  to  the  question,  "What  is  it  best  to 
take  after  preaching!" — "Lemonade;  candied 
orange  peel;  or  a  little  soft,  warm  ale.  But  egg 
and  wine  is  downright  poison.  And  so  are  late 
suppers"  (Tyerman,  vol.  II.  page  476).  This 
egg-and-wine  was  evidently  poison  for  the  same 
reason  as  "late  suppers"  were;  that  is,  not  in  it- 
self, but  because  of  the  lateness. 

Under  date  of  Thursday,  July  23,  1772,  of  the 
Journal,  Wesley  tells  of  reading,  in  the  lately 
published  "Medical  Essays",  how  a  person  had 
been  cured  of  dropsy  by  drinking  six  quarts  a  day 
of  cold  water;  a  second,  by  drinking  two  or  three 
gallons  of  "new  cyder";  a  third,  by  drinking  a 
gallon  or  two  of  "small  beer"  and  the  same  quan- 
tity of  buttermilk.  His  conclusion  is:  "Why, 
then,  what  are  we  doing  in  keeping  dropsical  per- 
sons from  small  drink?  The  same  as  in  keeping 
persons  in  the  small  pox  from  air".  Small  beer, 
— that  is,  weak  beer,  such  as  is  commonly  drunk  in 
this  country  now, — is  commended  by  Wesley  along 
with  water,  new  "cyder",  and  butter-milk. 

Even  more  significant  is  a  letter  to  John  Wes- 
ley included  in  his  "Journal",  under  date  of  Nov. 


174  THE  CHURCH 

20,  1767.  It  was  written  by  a  most  devoted 
Methodist,  to  tell  how  the  writer  had  reduced  his 
living  expenses,  in  order  to  give  to  the  poor.  He 
continues:  ''And  I  think  the  poor  themselves 
ought  to  be  questioned  with  regard  to  drinking 
tea  and  beer.  For  I  cannot  think  it  right  for  them 
to  indulge  themselves  in  those  things  which  I  re- 
frain from  to  help  them".  Beer  was,  patently,  in 
the  thought  of  this  pious  Methodist,  as  proper  a 
beverage  as  tea;  and  the  only  objection  to  either 
was  the  expense. 

And  now  for  wine. — Under  date  of  Monday, 
Sept.  9,  1771,  of  the  Journal,  Wesley  comments  on 
a  recent  medical  publication  as  follows : — ' '  I  read 
over  Dr.  Cadogan's  ingenious  'Treatise  on  Chron- 
ical Distempers'.  It  is  certainly  true  that  'very 
few  of  them  are  properly  hereditary';  that  most 
of  them  spring  either  from  indolence,  or  intem- 
perance, or  irregular  passions.  But  why  should 
he  condemn  wine  toto  genere,  which  is  one  of  the 
noblest  cordials  in  nature?  Yet  stranger,  why 
should  he  condemn  bread?"  "One  of  the  noblest 
cordials  in  nature"!  No  wonder  that  Tyerman 
comments  (vol.  III.  page  111),  "Here  he  comes 
in  conflict  with  modern  teetotallers"! 

At  the  outset  of  Wesley's  voyage  to  Georgia, 
with  which  his  independent  ministry  may  be  said 
to  start,  he  writes,  under  date  of  Monday,  Oct.  20, 
1735,  the  following  brief  record  of  his  experiment 
in  total  abstinence: — "Believing  the  denying  our- 
selves, even  in  the  smallest  instances,  might,  by 
the  blessing  of  God,  be  helpful  to  us,  we  wholly 
left  off  the  use  of  flesh  and  wine,  and  confined 


THE  REFORMATION  175 

ourselves  to  vegetable  food,  chiefly  rice  and  bis- 
cuit". Twelve  years  later,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  London  (June  11,  1747),  he  tells  the 
sequel  of  this  experiment.  The  Bishop  had  re- 
proached the  Methodists  with  "valuing  themselves 
upon  extraordinary  strictnesses  and  severities  in 
life".  To  this  Wesley  replies, — "I  presume  your 
Lordship  means  the  abstaining  from  wine  and  ani- 
mal food ;  which,  it  is  true,  Christianity  does  not 
require.  But,  if  you  do,  I  fear  your  Lordship  is 
not  thoroughly  informed  of  the  matter  of  fact.  I 
began  to  do  this  about  twelve  years  ago,  when  I 
had  no  thought  of  'annoying  parochial  Ministers', 
or  of  'captivating'  any  'people'  thereby,  unless  it 
were  the  Chicasaw  or  Choctaw  Indians.  But  I 
resumed  the  use  of  them  both,  about  two  years 
after,  for  the  sake  of  some  who  thought  I  made  it 
a  point  of  conscience;  telling  them,  'I  ivill  eat 
flesh  while  the  world  standeth,  rather  than  make 
my  brother  to  offend'.  Dr.  Cheyne  advised  me  to 
leave  them  off  again,  assuring  me,  'Till  you  do, 
you  will  never  be  free  from  fevers'.  And  since  I 
have  taken  his  advice,  I  have  been  free  (blessed  be 
God!)  from  all  bodily  disorders".  When,  years 
later, — I  think  toward  the  close  of  his  life, — Wes- 
ley revised  his  publications,  he  added  to  this  pas- 
sage this  footnote:  "I  continued  this  about  two 
years";  that  is,  the  regimen  prescribed  by  Dr. 
Cheyne.  Then  he  resumed  the  use  of  both  meat 
and  wine,  and  continued  them  "to  the  end  of  life" 
(Tyerman,  vol.  L  page  117).  He  must  have  found 
their  use,  in  moderation,  quite  consistent  with 
freedom  from  fevers,  in  spite  of  Dr.  Cheyne :  for 


176  THE  CHURCH 

in  his  last  days  he  thanked  God  fervently  for  the 
robust  health  that,  with  few  interruptions,  he  had 
enjoyed. 

In  the  above  passage,  mark  that  when  people 
began  to  think  that  Wesley  made  total  abstinence 
''a  point  of  conscience",  he  resumed  the  use  of 
wine.  He  was  determined  to  prove  to  them  that 
total  abstinence  was  not  "a  point  of  conscience". 
His  thought  was,  in  effect,  as  he  indicates  to  us 
himself,  I  will  drink  wine,  while  the  world 
standeth,  rather  than  make  my  brother  to  offend. 
Offend  how?  Why,  by  supposing  that  abstinence 
from  wine  was  a  Christian  duty;  whereas,  on  the 
contrary,  Wesley  tells  us  expressly, — "Christian- 
ity does  not  require  it".  That  one  sentence, — 
"Christianity  does  not  require  it";  does  not,  that 
is,  require  abstinence  from  wine, — and  he,  no 
doubt,  meant  also,  and  possibly  so  much  less,  from 
beer, — is  Wesley's  verdict  on  teetotalism.  When 
weak  or  censorious  brethren  thought  he  made  it 
"a  point  of  conscience"  not  to  drink,  he  made  it 
"a  point  of  conscience"  promptly  to  resume 
drink.  He  took  the  charge  of  teetotalism,  as  "a 
point  of  conscience",  as  a  slur  on  his  Christian 
character,  to  be  instantly  and  vigorously  repelled. 

Another  thing. — John  Wesley  never  condemned 
the  use  of  wine  and  beer;  but  he  did  discourage 
the  use  of  tea,  and  he  started  and  maintained  as 
long  as  he  could  a  society  to  promote  this  literal 
teetotalism.  "Wesley  believed  its  use  to  be  in- 
jurious" (Tyerman,  Vol.  L,  pages  521  to  523). 
But  he  did  not  believe  the  use  of  wine  and  beer 


THE  REFORMATION  177 

to  be  injurious,  and  he  started  no  society  to  pro- 
mote abstinence  from  these  drinks. 

As  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  Wes- 
ley regularly  and  frequently  celebrated  the  Holy 
Communion, — at  times  "an  immense  sacrament, 
such  as  Methodist  Conferences  and  Methodist 
congregations  now  never  witness"  (Tyerman,  vol. 
III.  page  271).  Now  from  the  beginning  of  his 
ministry  to  the  end  he  celebrated  this  Sacrament 
with  fermented  wine, — even  to  these  "immense" 
congregations,  which  must  have  included  weak 
brothers  and  reclaimed  drunkards.  It  never 
seems  to  have  occurred  to  him  that  it  was  wrong 
or  dangerous  to  offer  these  miscellaneous  gather- 
ings the  cup  of  fermented  wine,  with  the  exhorta- 
tion, "Drink". 

Charles  Wesley  was,  in  all  this,  like  his  brother ; 
he  too  gave  up  the  use  of  wine  for  the  same  lim- 
ited period.  I  assume  that  he  shared  his  brother's 
objection  to  "drams";  though  on  a  cursory  exam- 
ination, I  can  find  no  evidence  on  this  head.  He 
celebrated  the  Holy  Communion  with  fermented 
wine. 

The  Rev.  George  Whitefield  was  the  flaming 
herald  of  the  new  Reformation,  the  mightiest 
preacher  that  Methodism  has  produced.  Like  the 
Wesleys,  he  visited  Georgia ;  where  he  established 
an  orphan  asylum.  He  found  that  "among  the 
regulations  established  by  the  Trustees,  govern- 
ing under  the  first  Royal  Charter  (of  1732),  the 
introduction  of  rum  was  prohibited"  (History  of 
Georgia,  Charles  C.  Jones,  Jn.  Vol.  I.  page  110). 
On  November  21,  1735,  the  common  council  re- 


178  THE  CHURCH 

solved:  "That  the  drinking  of  Bum  be  abso- 
lutely prohibited,  and  that  all  which  shall  be 
brought  there  shall  be  staved".  Whitefield  was 
strongly  opposed  to  this  prohibition.  At  his  first 
visit  to  Georgia  he  expressed  his  persuasion  and 
thought  that  it  tended  to  keep  the  Colony  feeble 
(Life  of  George  Whitefield,  M.A.,  Field  Preacher, 
by  James  Paterson  Gledstone,  page  135).  Later, 
when  this  prohibition  was  rescinded,  Whitefield 
thought  it  was  a  step  toward  making  Georgia  as 
flourishing  a  colony  as  South  Carolina. 

And  Whitefield 's  ''Journal"  records,  under 
date  of  Monday,  Aug.  28,  1739,  on  his  sailing  from 
Savannah:  ''They  brought  me  Wine,  Ale,  Cake, 
Coffee,  Tea,  and  other  Things  proper  for  my  Pas- 
sage". 

The  Eev.  Thomas  Coke  was  the  first  Methodist 
Bishop,  being  appointed  thereto  by  John  Wesley 
himself.  Though  he  belonged  to  a  later  genera- 
tion than  Whitefield  (he  died  in  1814),  he  was 
just  as  friendly  to  drink;  as  the  following  entry 
in  his  "Journal",  under  the  year  1793,  shows: 
"From  Dominica  we  again  proceeded  on  our 
voyage.  But  such  a  wretched  crew,  and  such  an 
infamous  set  of  passengers,  I  never  sailed  with 
before.  My  friends  had  furnished  me  with  a  few 
bottles  of  excellent  old  rum  for  my  voyage;  but, 
after  I  was  in  bed,  these  poor  creatures  got  hold 
of  it,  and  intoxicated  themselves"  (Extracts  of 
the  Journal  of  the  late  Eev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D. 
Dublin,  1816). 

Francis  Asbury,  co-laborer  and  brother  bishop 
with    Coke,    became,    by   his   indefatigable    and 


THE  REFORMATION  179 

truly  apostolic  labors,  the  "Father  of  American 
Methodism ' '.  Like  Wesley,  and  unlike  Whitefield, 
he  was  both  preacher  and  organizer;  but  it  was 
especially  as  organizer  that  he  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  Methodism  in  this  country  broad  and  deep 
and  true.  This  good  man  died  in  1816.  His  at- 
titude to  drink  is  revealed  by  an  entry  in  his 
''Journal",  under  date  of  "Sabbath,  March  24, 
1805";  when  already  the  total  abstinence  move- 
ment was  beginning  to  be  defined.  This  entry 
gives  the  gist  of  his  sermon  that  day, — "Present 
your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice.  .  .  .  We  must 
not  only  not  live  in  the  use  of  unlawful  things,  but 
we  must  not  indulge  in  the  unlawful  use  of  lawful 
things :  it  is  lawful  to  eat,  but  not  to  gluttony ;  it 
is  lawful  to  drink,  but  not  to  drunkenness;  it  is 
lawful  to  be  married,  but  it  is  unlawful  for  either 
husband  or  wife  to  idolize  the  other". 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Wesleys,  Whitefield, 
Coke,  and  Asbury  all  justified  drink;  all  but  the 
last  drank,  and  as  to  him  I  cannot  find  whether 
he  drank  or  not ;  the  Wesleys  objected  to  distilled 
liquors;  but  Whitefield  and  Coke,  the  mighty 
preacher  and  the  premier  Bishop,  drank  wine,  ale, 
rum. 

The  Methodist  Societies  in  America  did  not,  for 
some  time,  go  farther,  in  this  matter,  than  John 
Wesley:  they  thought  it  enough  to  proscribe  dis- 
tilled liquor;  first,  the  use  of  it;  then  the  traffic 
in  it.  On  Dr.  Coke's  visit  to  America,  in  1784, 
he  drew  up,  with  ]Mr.  Asbury,  a  small  volume  of 
187  pages  respecting  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 


180  THE  CHURCH 

with  explanatory  notes.  The  10th  Section  of 
Chapter  2  deals  with  the  liquor  traffic  as  follows : 
*'If  any  member  of  our  Society  retail  or  give 
spirituous  liquors,  and  anything  disorderly  be 
transacted  under  his  roof,  on  this  account,  the 
preacher  who  has  the  oversight  of  the  circuit  shall 
proceed  against  him  as  in  the  case  of  other  im- 
moralities" (Samuel  Drew's  Life  of  Eev.  Thomas 
Coke,  page  114).  As  Dr.  James  M.  Buckley  says 
(History  of  Methodism,  page  349),  "this  does  not 
prohibit  the  retailing  or  giving  of  spirituous 
liquors,  or  subject  the  member  to  penalty  or  in- 
quiry, unless  something  disorderly  is  transacted 
'under  his  roof  ".  This  rule  was  reaffirmed  by 
the  Baltimore  General  Conference  of  1796. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  "Minutes  of  Some  Con- 
versations between  the  Preachers  in  Connection 
with  the  Eev.  John  Wesley",  in  Baltimore,  on 
April  24,  1780,  has  this  "Question  23.  Do  we  dis- 
approve of  the  practice  of  distilling  grain  into 
liquor?  Shall  we  disown  our  friends  who  will  not 
renounce  the  practice?"  And  the  answer  is 
"Yes".  Another  Conference,  "held  at  Ellis's 
Preaching  House,  May  6th,  1783,  and  adjourned 
to  Baltimore  the  27th",  spoke  to  the  same  effect. 
The  following  year  the  Conference  published 
"Section  10,  Of  the  duty  of  Preachers:  Do  you 
choose  and  use  water  for  your  common  drink? 
And  only  take  wine  medicinally  and  sacrament- 
ally!"  Yet  even  as  late  as  1812  the  following  mo- 
tion was  defeated:  "That  no  stationed  or  local 
preacher  shall  retail  spirituous  or  malt  liquors 
without  forfeiting  his  ministerial  character  among 


THE  REFORMATION  181 

us".  Dr.  Buckley  explains  that  ''since  the  prac- 
tice had  grown  up  gradually,  it  was  deemed  by  the 
majority  improper  to  pass  a  rule  at  that  time". 
A  similar  motion  was  passed  four  years  later. 
Yet  even  as  late  a  Conference  as  that  of  1828  was 
occupied  with  "many  petitions  concerning  ardent 
spirits.  ...  a  very  moderate  resolution  was 
passed"  (Buckley,  page  450).  It  was  still  ardent 
spirits,  rather  than  drink  in  general,  that  was  op- 
posed. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  look  for  entire  consistency 
or  faultless  sequence  in  the  initiation  of  a  novel 
and  radical  policy  against  a  world-wide  and  age- 
long practice,  such  as  drink;  and  the  Methodist 
body  in  this  country  came  as  close  to  it  as  could 
reasonably  be  expected.  But  the  very  hesitation 
and  uncertainty  bear  witness  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  a  new  principle  and  a  new  practice  that  they 
were  coming  at,  not  the  revival  of  an  old  one.  It 
was  a  new  and  novel  chapter  in  Christian  history, 
without  precedent  in  Bible  or  Church.  And  it  was 
worked  out  by  the  Methodist  body  itself,  rather 
than  by  its  great  founders  and  teachers.  It  is  an 
unquestionable  truth  that  the  dogma  of  the  evil 
of  drink  was  never  contemplated  by  the  scholars, 
orators,  and  statesmen  who  gave  Methodism  to 
the  world;  they  themselves  would  have  fallen 
under  its  condemnation,  both  in  principle  and 
practice ;  and  Wesley,  who  resumed  drink  to  prove 
that  Christianity  does  not  require  total  absti- 
nence, and  Asbury  who  preached,  "It  is  lawful  to 
drink",  would  have  made  short  work  of  this 
dogma,  as  alike  mischievous  and  unscriptural. 


182  THE  CHURCH 

Moreover,  these  great  leaders  all  used  wine  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion;  and  no 
one  who  does  that  can  call  it  accursed. 

The  addition  of  Methodism  completes  the  roll- 
call  of  Protestantism. 

A    QUERY 

But  may  it  not  be  that  the  wrong  of  drink  was 
a  truth  not  explicated  in  the  Gospel,  nor  in  Chris- 
tian history,  because  of  the  present  hardness  of 
men's  hearts,  but  dormant,  nevertheless,  as  a  seed 
truth,  to  germinate  and  rise  into  stately  growth 
in  these  last  days; — in  this  resembling  slavery, 
tolerated  in  the  Gospel,  and  approved  till  lately 
in  the  church,  but  still  in  organic  contradiction 
with  both?  Let  us  see  whether  this  is  not  a  true 
parallelism. 

Jesus  never  owned  slaves.  Jesus  never  changed 
a  free  man  into  a  slave.  Jesus  taught,  ''AH  ye 
are  brothers"  (Mat.  23.8) ;  Jesus  taught,  "Neither 
be  ye  called  masters"  (Mat.  23.10).  But  Jesus 
drank.  Jesus  changed  water  into  wine.  Jesus 
offered  drink  to  his  disciples  and  said,  "Drink 
this,  all  of  you  drink  this".  Jesus  blessed  God 
for  drink;  but  he  never  blessed  God  that  there 
were  slaves.  And  he  never  commended  slavery  as 
an  institution  to  be  cherished  by  his  disciples  till 
his  coming  again.  In  discovering  that  slavery  was 
wrong,  we  have  discovered  only  what  Jesus  knew 
and  implicitly  taught.  But,  if  drink  is  wrong, 
then  Jesus  was  wrong,  wrong*  in  his  practice, 
wrong  in  his  precept,  wrong  in  his  principle. 

Till   about   the   year   1800,    then,   neither   the 


THE  REFORMATION  183 

Church  nor  any  part  of  the  Church  nor  any  fac- 
tion of  Christians, — apart  from  the  extreme  as- 
cetics of  the  first  ages, — ^had  discovered  that  it  was 
wrong  to  drink.  On  the  contrary,  the  Church  of 
God  of  the  Old  Covenant  honored  God, — as  they 
thought,  in  obedience  to  his  own  command, — by 
offering  him  drink  on  his  altar  daily;  and  few 
Old  Testament  observances,  ecclesiastical  or  so- 
cial, were  complete  without  wine.  Jesus  reiterated 
the  sanctification  of  wine  in  the  worship  of  the 
Eternal  Father,  and  bade  his  disciples  continue 
this  as  a  memorial  of  himself  till  the  end  of  time. 
The  holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world, — with 
some  deviations,  local  and  occasional,  when  the 
church  was  finding  itself,  amid  persecution  and 
uncertainty, — so  understood  his  words,  and  so,  in 
love  and  loyalty,  obeyed  him.  And  perhaps  no 
single  hour  has  passed  through  all  these  ages, 
when  drink  has  not  been  offered  on  some  Chris- 
tian altar, — and  for  the  most  part  on  altars  un- 
numbered,— in  the  Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  that  rite  at  once  awful  and 
affecting, — which  for  the  greater  part  of  Christen- 
dom stands  for  the  nearest  access  of  man  to  God 
vouchsafed  us  here  below.  Throughout  all  the 
Christian  ages,  throughout  the  divine  epos  of  the 
New  Testament  presided  over  by  the  heavenly 
Master  of  the  Feast,  throughout  the  supernatural 
drama  of  the  Old  Dispensation, — back,  ever  back, 
generation  before  generation,  century  before  cen- 
tury, age  before  age,  before  there  was  a  Holy 
Land,  before  the  Revelation  of  Sinai  was,  before 
Israel  went  down  to  Egypt,  till  at  last,  dim,  myste- 


184  THE  CHURCH 

rious,  the  heroic  figure  of  Melchizedek  is  dis- 
cerned, king  of  Salem,  and  priest  of  God  by  an 
earlier  consecration  than  that  of  Aaron,  bringing- 
forth  to  Abram,  friend  of  God,  Father  of  the 
Faithful,  bread  and  yayin, — through  all  that  im- 
mense span  of  time  has  drink  been  honored  and 
used  among  the  people  of  God.  Jerusalem  and 
Rome  and  Alexandria  and  Antioch  and  Carthage 
and  Lyons  and  Canterbury  and  Worms  and  Augs- 
burg and  Geneva, — every  nation  and  tongue  and 
kindred  have,  with  consentient  voice,  uttered  its 
praise,  witnessing  of  it,  like  the  psalmist  of  Israel, 
that  it  Cometh  from  God,  and  maketh  glad  the 
heart  of  man. 

But  about  1800  A.  D.  it  was  discovered  that  it 
was  wrong  to  drink ! 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   TEMPEEANCE   MOVEMENT 


The  Temperance  people  did  not  discover  that  it 
was  wrong  to  drink  from  the  Bible.  In  fact,  they 
made  two  discoveries;  first,  that  it  was  wrong 
to  drink;  and  then,  later,  that  the  Bible  taught 
that  it  was  wrong  to  drink.  They  discovered  that 
it  was  wrong  to  drink,  originally,  from  seeing  the 
awful  ravages  made  by  some  kinds  of  drink  in 
English-speaking  lands.  Until  lately  their  doc- 
trine has  been  confined  to  these  peoples.  Now  it 
has  some  vogue  in  Scandinavia  and  in  Finland. 
"With  these  exceptions,  it  is  virtually  confined  to 
the  Puritan  Churches, — Puritan  by  descent  or 
affiliation.  Here  and  there  an  Episcopalian  or  a 
Lutheran,  imperfectly  informed  in  his  own  doc- 
trinal standards,  may  be  found  who  professes  this 
tenet;  but  these  Churches,  and  the  Catholic,  are 
patently  out  of  sympathy  with  it.  Their  members 
are  free  not  to  drink;  they  may  encourage  move- 
ments for  total  abstinence ;  but  they  do  not  teach 
that  it  is  wrong  to  drink.  And,  as  a  fact,  the 
membership  of  these  bodies,  as  a  whole,  are  not 
much  interested  in  these  ''Temperance"  move- 
ments ;  their  interest  is  in  the  promotion  of  mod- 
eration. They  maintain  that  they  are  following 
the  old  teaching,  and  the  old  way,  of  Church  and 

185 


186  THE  CHURCH 

Bible,  of  saint  and  seer  and  Savior,  the  way  of 
self-control  and  sobriety. 

About  a  hundred  years  ago,  then,  a  handful  of 
earnest  Puritans  discovered  that  it  was  wrong  to 
drink;  and,  later,  they  discovered  that  the  Bible 
taught  this.  They  pushed  their  propaganda  with 
untiring  zeal ;  and  they  have,  in  considerable  part, 
converted  the  Puritan  Churches  to  their  view.  A 
large  part  of  the  membership  of  these  bodies  have 
been  brought  to  believe  that  the  Bible  forbid^ 
drink.  They  have  been  told  so  by  their  teachers ; 
they  are  told  so  over  and  over  again;  their  chil- 
dren are  told  so  in  the  Sunday  Schools ;  they  be- 
lieve what  they  are  told;  they  read  their  Bibles 
with  this  preconception;  the  wine  that  they  find 
praised  there  is  unfermented  grape- juice;  only 
maledictions  are  associated  with  fermented  wine; 
they  never  hear  these  teachings  denied ;  they  have 
no  motive,  and  but  inconsiderable  qualification,  for 
an  independent  examination  of  Bible  teaching, 
*' except  some  man  shall  gTiide"  them;  in  common 
with  the  masses  everywhere,  history  and  uni- 
versality, the  consent  of  mankind,  are  only  words 
to  them.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  they  go  forth, 
conquering  and  to  conquer,  in  the  sacred  cause  of 
total  abstinence,  inspired  with  a  ''Thus  saith  the 
Lord"? 

As  conscientious  Christians,  they  could  do  no 
less.  And  so  they  have  over-spread  Anglo-Saxon- 
dom,  and  in  many  portions  of  it  have  inaugurated 
policies  of  profound  social  and  political  impor- 
tance. Their  daring  goal  is  no  less  than  to  drive 
drink  off  the  face  of  the  globe,  to  make  mankind 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  187 

teetotalers.  They  are  moved  by  the  mightiest  im- 
pulse that  man  can  feel,  the  conviction  that  they 
are  doing  the  Lord's  work.  Tolerance,  compro- 
mise, delay  are,  therefore,  disloyalty.  This  is  a 
conviction  that  wonderfully  simplifies  every  situa- 
tion to  which  it  is  applied.  Humanly  viewed,  most 
situations  have  their  difficulties.  There  is  some- 
thing to  be  said  on  both  or  on  several  sides. 
Facts  must  be  got  at ;  they  must  be  weighed ;  ex- 
perience must  be  taken  into  account ;  the  surprises 
of  human  nature,  as  well  as  the  fallibility  of 
human  judgment,  may  bring  to  naught  the  best 
intentions.  All  human  plans  are  vulnerable  to 
mortal  weapons ;  they  are  obliged  to  justify  them- 
selves by  homely  facts  and  plain  reasons.  But 
the  religious  enthusiast,  while  not  above  using  all 
these  as  far  as  they  go,  is  not  dependent  on  them. 
When  they  fail,  he  simply  hurls  the  dogma  of 
Omniscience  and  the  anathema  of  Omnipotence 
against  the  accursed  thing.  And,  in  truth,  this 
is  his  right,  if  only  the  dogma  and  anathema  be 
authentic.  But  suppose  they  are  not?  Suppose 
that  the  Almighty  has  never  ^' fixed  his  canon 
'gainst"  drink,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  approved 
a  certain  form  of  it!  Then,  indeed,  we  may  still 
approve  of  total  abstinence;  but  it  will  be  a  dif- 
ferent sort  of  approval,  by  no  means  so  robust 
and  inspiriting.  Total  abstinence  will  then,  at 
best,  be  the  likeliest  treatment  of  a  hard  problem ; 
whereas,  on  the  other  view,  there  is  no  problem, 
but  only  a  plain  duty.  If  the  rigorists  became 
convinced  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  condemn 
drink,  the  heart  of  teetotalism  would  sink.    Had 


188  THE  CHURCH 

it  not  been  for  this  religious  conviction,  it  is  safe 
to  say  that  intemperance  would  have  been  attacked 
along  quite  different  lines,  with  quite  diiferent 
results.  And  yet  our  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
tures obliges  us  to  pronounce  this  conviction  an 
error;  for  the  Bible  approves  drink,  in  its  place. 
The  cynic,  indeed,  may  smile,  as  he  contem- 
plates such  an  amazing  paradox  of  human  reason ; 
— that  so  many  of  those  whose  proud  and  unceas- 
ing boast  it  has  ever  been  that  the  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only,  is  their  religion  pay  no  more  attention 
to  what  it  teaches  about  drink,  in  almost  every 
book,  than  if  it  were  a  trade  journal  of  the  liquor- 
dealers  !  It  is  the  old  story  of  human  nature,  cast 
out  at  the  door,  coming  in  again  at  the  window. 
Originally  an  indignant  protest  against  those  who 
set  out  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  rather 
than  subject  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of 
God  (Rom.  10.3),  rigorism,  in  this,  has  ended  by 
doing  that  very  same  identical  thing!  It  estab- 
lishes its  own  righteousness,  and  calls  it  God's; 
and  God's  it  calls  the  devil's! 

II 

Is  rigorism  right  or  wrong,  again,  in  calling  its 
campaign  for  total  abstinence  "the  United 
Churches  in  action"?  Is  the  Church  of  God  today 
on  the  side  of  total  abstinence  as  a  religious  duty, 
or  indeed  at  all?  Is  even  the  Church  of  God  in 
the  United  States  committed  to  total  abstinence? 

The  Methodist  Church  requires  total  abstinence. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  has  never  ventured 
further  than  a  "solemn  warning"  against  alco- 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  189 

holic  beverages,  with  a  ban  on  the  business  and 
those  in  it.  Despite  this  ''warning",  any  member 
of  this  Church  may  drink, — yes,  any  clergyman  of 
this  church  may  drink, — without  impairing  his 
church  status.  His  associates  might,  or  might 
not,  make  it  unpleasant  for  him,  but  he  would 
not  be  subject  to  ecclesiastical  discipline. 

The  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  finds  a 
warrant  against  drink  in  the  Bible,  as  well  as  in 
good  morals.  It  could  scarce  speak  worse  of  free 
love  than  it  does  of  drink.  Yet,  unlike  the  Metho- 
dist Church,  it  does  not  forbid  it  to  its  members. 
In  fact,  it  does  not  forbid  it  in  the  sanctuary ;  for 
leading  Presbyterian  churches  use  fermented  wine 
in  the  Holy  Communion.  This  Church,  however, 
penalizes  the  traffic:  no  Presbyterian  may  engage 
in  it.  Yet,  by  a  curious  anomaly,  the  customer 
goes  scot  free;  he  is  even  welcomed  to  the  pew 
and  the  altar.  It  makes  all  the  difference  in  the 
world  on  which  side  of  the  counter  the  Christian 
stands.  For  example,  an  elder  buys  wine  of  the 
dealer;  the  seller  is  excommunicated;  but  the 
buyer  carries  that  very  wine  to  the  church,  and 
assists  in  distributing  it  to  the  communicants  in 
the  Holy  Communion ! 

The  Baptist  churches  are,  as  a  rule,  against 
drink.  But  it  is  far  from  true  that  a  man  would  be 
refused  membership,  or  deprived  of  membership, 
for  drinking,  in  all,  or  -even  most,  Baptist 
churches. 

The  Congregational  churches  are,  in  a  way, 
committed  to  total  abstinence;  but  not  in  a  very 
rigorous  way.    A  man  can  be  a  good  Congrega- 


190  THE  CHURCH 

tionalist  and  a  decent  drinker  at  tlie  same  time. 
Many  Congregational  clmrclies  use  real  wine  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion. 

The  churches  of  the  denomination  known  as 
Christian  use  nothing  but  grape- juice,  and  ear- 
nestly urge  total  abstinence  on  their  members. 

The  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  condemning  the 
drink  traffic,  leaves  its  members  free  to  drink; 
and  I  am  told  that  real  wine  is  oftener  than  not 
used  by  them  in  the  Holy  Communion. 

The  Moravian  Brethren,  though  one  of  the 
smaller  divisions  of  Protestant  Christianity,  have 
a  more  ancient  and  honorable  history  than  most 
others.  Their  Protestantism  has  been  vindicated 
in  fire  and  blood  too  often  to  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. Their  witness  to  their  convictions  has,  in- 
deed, been  singularly  consistent  and  unworldly. 
It  is  not  generally  known  that  John  Wesley,  the 
founder  of  Methodism,  was  converted  by  the 
Moravians.  And  the  unvarying  testimony  of  these 
original  and  loyal  Protestants  is  that  drink  is 
Christian.  So  far  are  they  from  any  other 
thought  that,  like  the  ancient  Catholic  Church, 
which  they  left,  they  have,  here  and  there,  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  it.  A  friend  writes  me  of 
one  of  the  best  known  of  these  enterprises  as 
follows:  ''The  Moravian  Brethren  conduct  a 
well-known  Brewery  at  Niedermendig  on  the 
Rhine.  It  is  famous  for  its  natural  cellars  below 
ground,  and  is  the  property  of  the  settlement  of 
Moravian  Brethren  in  Neuwied  on  the  Rhine,  by 
whom  it  is  managed  and  run.  I  was  for  three 
years  at  the  school  of  the  Moravian  Brethren  in 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  191 

Neuwied,  and  we  boys  were  frequently  taken  by 
our  teachers  to  visit  this  Brewery  and  taste  its 
beer  in  the  cellars ' '.  As  I  write,  I  have  before  me 
two  photographs  of  this  Protestant  brewery,  one 
being  of  the  ''Bierwirthschaft  d.  Briidergemeine  ", 
and  the  other  of  the  '^Brauerei  der  Briider- 
gemeine", where  the  two  chief  brews  of  this 
Brotherhood,  the  "Herrenhuter-Brau"  and  "Brii- 
dergemeine-Brau",  are  made  and  sold. 

The  Episcopal  Church  teaches  the  rightfulness 
of  drink,  in  the  most  imperative  terms,  in  the 
Catechism,  to  be  learned  before  admission  to  the 
Holy  Communion.  Here  is  what  the  Catechism 
says: 

Question: — What  are  the  benefits  whereof  we 
are  partakers  thereby?  [That  is,  in  the  Holy 
Communion.] 

Answer: — The  strengthening  and  refreshing  of 
our  souls  by  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  as  our 
bodies  are  by  the  Bread  and  Wine. 

As  our  bodies  are  what  by  the  bread  and  wine? 
Why,  strengthened  and  refreshed.  That  is,  wine, 
like  bread,  is  a  food  that  strengthens  and  re- 
freshes ;  at  least,  it  is  a  refreshment,  good  for  man. 
This  is  the  formal  teaching  of  the  Anglican 
Churches,  which  make  up  the  largest  religious 
community  in  the  English-speaking  world,  in  fact 
almost  twice  as  large  as  the  next  below  it  (32,- 
000,000  Episcopalians,  as  against  19,000,000 
Methodists;  see  the  World  Almanac). 

When  much  was  being  said,  in  other  denomina- 
tions, about  the  iniquity  of  fermented  wine  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the 


192  THE  CHURCH 

Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  adopted  the 
following  Eesolution,  dated  Chicago,  Oct.  26, 1886 : 

"That,  in  the  judgment  of  the  House  of 
Bishops,  the  use  of  the  unfermented  juice  of  the 
grape,  as  the  lawful  and  proper  wine  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  is  unwarranted  by  the  example  of  our 
Lord,  and  an  unauthorized  departure  from  the 
custom  of  the  Catholic  Church". 

In  their  vindication  of  fermented  wine  the 
Bishops  have  the  clear  warrant  of  the  Prayer 
Book,  not  only,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Catechism, 
but  also  in  the  weightiest  prayer  of  the  Prayer 
Book's  weightiest  office,  the  Prayer  of  Consecra- 
tion in  the  Office  of  the  Holy  Communion;  which 
speaks  of  this  fermented  wine  as  a  gift  and  crea- 
ture of  God:  "these  thy  holy  gifts",  "these  thy 
gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine".  It  would, 
indeed,  be  hard,  and  probably  impossible,  to  find 
an  Episcopal  church  in  the  world  in  which  unfer- 
mented grape- juice  is  used  instead  of  wine ;  nor  is 
there  any  party  in  the  Church,  nor  would  it  be 
easy  to  find  an  individual  member,  that  advocates 
its  use  there. 

Every  Episcopalian  is  free  to  drink  or  not.  He 
is  free  to  persuade  his  fellows,  if  he  can,  to  ab- 
stain. But  he  is  not  free  to  pronounce  drink 
wrong;  for  he  is  obliged,  from  time  to  time,  to 
drink  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion.  From  time 
to  time  the  Church,  in  the  most  solemn  and  blessed 
act  that  it  knows,  puts  the  cup  of  fermented  wine 
to  the  lips  of  every  member,  and  literally  says, 
"Drink".  It  puts  that  cup  to  the  lips  of  every 
boy  and  girl  admitted  to  Communion,  and  says, 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  193 

"Drink".  It  is  the  church  herself  that  says, 
*  *  Drink '  \  If  her  members  are  neglectful  and  dila- 
tory, she  has  a  form  of  rebuke  and  exhortation, 
that  they  may  come  and  "Eat"  and  "Drink". 

For  many  years,  too,  the  Episcopal  Church  has 
been  encouraging  "Frequent  Communion"  among 
its  members.  Whereas  in  earlier  times  good 
Episcopalians  went  to  Communion  only  quarterly, 
now  they  go  once  a  month.  Indeed,  not  a  few 
communicate  weekly;  and  some  even  daily.  All 
this  the  Episcopal  Church  encourages.  Yet  this 
encouragement  means  that,  so  much  more  fre- 
quently, the  Church  puts  the  cup  of  fermented 
wine  to  the  lips  of  the  Communicant,  with  the  in- 
junction, "Drink".  It  entails  that  the  taste  and 
the  smell  of  wine  shall  become  a  regular  and  fre- 
quent experience  of  the  Christian  life. 

Now  what  is  right  inside  the  church  cannot  be 
wrong  outside.  It  may  be  inexpedient,  but  not 
wrong.  And,  in  consequence.  Episcopalians  are 
not  often  abstainers  on  principle.  What  Christ 
blessed  with  his  presence  and  first  miracle  in  Cana 
of  Galilee,  they  feel,  must  be  right  and  good, — not 
to  speak  of  the  numberless  attestations  of  it  else- 
where throughout  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  as  well  as  by  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

From  the  following  utterance  of  Bishop  Webb, 
of  the  diocese  of  Milwaukee,  concerning  saloons, 
it  can  be  judged  how  Episcopalians  feel  about 
drink : 

"The  Episcopal  clergy  is  inclined  to  regard 
with  leniency  the  saloon  in  all  its  phases,  so  long 


194  THE  CHURCH 

as  tlie  saloon  is  not  detrimental,  on  its  face,  to 
public  interest  and  morals.  I  believe  that  the  gen- 
eral tendency  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  is  to  favor, 
rather  than  opi^ose,  the  well-regulated  saloon. 
The  saloon,  when  at  its  best,  certainly  has  many 
things  in  its  favor.  It  is  a  gathering-place  of 
people,  and  in  many  instances  of  good  people". 

To  the  same  effect,  the  Eev.  Dr.  Eainsford, 
lately  Rector  of  the  largest  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  St.  George's,  New  York: 

"To  drink  is  no  sin.  Jesus  Christ  drank.  To 
keep  a  saloon  is  no  sin".  And  the  present  Eector 
of  St.  George's  Church,  the  Eev.  Karl  Eeiland, 
agrees  with  him.    He  says, 

''We've  got  to  admit  that  the  saloon  is  a  neces- 
sity. It  is  the  poor  man's  club.  What  we  ought 
to  do  is  try  to  improve  the  condition  of  the 
saloon;  make  it  livable.  Personally,  I  don't  want 
to  abolish  the  saloon". 

The  late  Bishop  Henry  C.  Potter,  of  the  great 
diocese  of  New  York,  presided  at  the  opening  of 
the  famous  ''Subway  Saloon";  and  this  enter- 
prise, as  well  as  Bishop  Potter's  patronage  of  it, 
was  commended  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, the  head  of  the  whole  Anglican  Communion, 
visiting  in  this  country  at  the  time.  The  Arch- 
bishop declared  that  his  wife  was  interested  in  a 
tavern  of  the  same  character  in  England. 

Comparatively  late  in  its  history,  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Church  withdrew  the  cup  from  the  laity. 
This  was  not  on  account  of  any  change  in  its  belief 
concerning  the  use  of  wine.    It  still  required  the 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  195 

officiating  priest  to  drink  of  the  cup;  and  it  does 
today.  And  today,  as  in  all  its  past,  wine  is  held 
by  that  church  a  lawful  and  proper  indulgence. 
The  present  pope,  it  is  understood,  takes  a  glass 
of  wine  with  his  dinner.  Of  the  hundreds  of  popes 
it  is  not  probable  that  even  one  was  a  total  ab- 
stainer; and  the  idea  of  a  prohibitionist  pope  is 
impossible.  Yet  Catholic  total  abstinence  soci- 
eties have  done  a  good  work,  with  the  Church's 
blessing;  not  on  the  principle  that  drink  was  sin- 
ful, but  that,  for  some,  abstinence  was  safer. 

The  Holy  Orthodox  Church  of  the  East,  other- 
wise known  as  the  Greek  Church,  does  not  present 
the  wine  to  the  communicant  to  drink.  It  employs 
the  practice  of  intinction ;  that  is,  the  sacred  bread 
is  dipped  into  the  consecrated  wine,  and  these 
both  are  received  and  swallowed  together.  This 
too  is  only  a  change  in  detail :  the  principle  is  un- 
changed. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  teaching  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Eoman  Catholic  and  Greek  Churches 
concerning  wine  as  a  sacramental  element  and  as 
a  beverage  is  true  of  the  other  churches  of  the 
East;  as  well  as  of  the  Church  of  England  before 
the  Reformation. 

The  Lutherans,  in  various  divisions,  are  one  of 
the  large  ecclesiastical  families  in  this  country: 
they  have  about  two  and  a  third  million  members. 
Their  general  attitude  is  voiced  by  the  Rev.  Max 
'A.  L.  Hirsch,  of  St.  Paul's  Lutheran  Church, 
Newark,  N.  J.,  in  these  words :  ' '  The  ethical  point 
of  view  is  the  manner  of  our  taking  [drink],  the 
moderate  or  immoderate  use  falling  under  the 


196  THE  CHURCH 

ethical  consideration.  The  taking  of  wine  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  and  its  institution  by  our  Lord, 
should  alone  be  decisive  on  this  question.  .  .  . 
The  church  has  to  develop  character  and  personal- 
ity capable  of  acting  freely,  and  not  under  com- 
pulsion, on  moral  issues.  No  man  can  be  brought 
up  honest  by  locking  up  all  the  things  that  he 
might  steal' ^ 

Some  of  the  Lutheran  Synods,  it  is  true, 
have,  without  committing  themselves  to  the 
proposition  that  drink  is  wrong,  gone  so  far  as 
to  advocate  prohibition.  But  the  great  Synodical 
Conference,  with  765,000  members,  the  General 
Council,  with  500,000,  and  the  Ohio  Synod,  with 
133,000,  as  well  as  the  great  Synod  of  New  York, 
with  34,000  members  are  all  against  the  rigorist 
position.  In  fact,  of  the  two  and  a  third  million 
members,  over  two  million  take  this  stand ;  and  the 
tendency  is  not  toward  the  increase,  but  the  de- 
crease, of  those  who  depart  from  the  historic  and 
conservative  Lutheran  position. 

There  are,  besides,  some  2,000,000  Jews  in  the 
United  States,  with  some  200,000  adults;  among 
whom  teetotalism  has  no  standing.  As  the  Jewish 
religion  is  a  Bible  religion,  it  may,  in  a  broad 
sense,  be  brought  under  the  term  American 
Church. 

There  are,  too,  many  minor  religious  divisions. 
The  total  church  membership  (including  over 
400,000  Mormons)  for  the  year  1912  (according 
to  the  World  Almanac  for  1914),  is  36,668,165. 
Of  these  the  Baptist,  Congregationalist,  Metho- 
dist, and  Presbyterian  furnish  about  16,000,000. 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  197 

The  Catholics,  Lutherans,  and  Episcopalians  are 
about  16,500,000.  This  leaves  nearly  half  a  mil- 
lion members  of  Reformed  Churches  out ;  who,  for 
the  most  part,  are  not  against  drink.  But,  of  the 
four  great  Puritan  bodies  just  mentioned,  it  is 
doubtful  if  even  half  the  membership  would  sub- 
scribe to  the  proposition  that  it  is  wrong  to  drink. 
And,  with  the  addition  of  the  three  or  four  mil- 
lions belonging  to  the  minor  divisions,  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  even  one  church-member  out  of  three,  in 
this  country,  would  assent  to  this  proposition, — 
perhaps  not  one  out  of  four. 

If  the  rightfulness  of  drink  were  put  to  a  vote 
of  the  clergy  of  this  country,  drink  might  be  con- 
demned. But,  if  they  voted  in  proportion  to  the 
membership  of  their  congregations,  a  pastor  with 
a  thousand  members  having  ten  times  the  voting 
power  of  a  pastor  with  a  hundred,  drink  would 
not  be  condemned  even  by  the  clergy.  So  far  is 
it  from  correct  that  the  campaign  for  total  absti- 
nence is  "the  united  churches  in  action" !  The  very 
large  majority  of  American  Church  people  both 
drink  and  believe  it  right  to  drink.  It  would  be 
impossible,  otherwise,  to  account  for  the  great  and 
growing  quantities  of  drink  consumed.  For  these 
36,000,000  church  members  carry  with  them 
enough  children  and  enough  adherents  (members 
in  all  but  name)  to  constitute  virtually  the  popu- 
lation of  the  country.  Again,  if  *'the  united 
churches"  were  "in  action"  politically  against 
drink,  drink  would  be  outlawed:  whatever  the 
"united  churches"  of  this  country  ask  of  the  law- 
maker they  can  have;  for  "the  united  churches" 


198  THE  CHURCH 

are  the  country.  No  legislature,  no  congress,  no 
administration  would  dream  of  withstanding 
them.  Where  drink  carries  an  election,  it  is  by 
church  votes. 

The  Church  of  God  in  this  country,  we  must 
concede,  then,  is  not  against  drink. 

The  situation  in  England  is  even  more  adverse 
to  the  dogma  that  it  is  wrong  to  drink.  The 
Church  of  England  has  no  place  for  it;  neither 
has  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church.  And  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Non-Conformist  bodies,  for  the  most 
part,  drink.  After  a  careful  inquiry,  I  cannot  find 
a  single  denomination  in  England,  except  the  Sal- 
vation Army,  that  makes  total  abstinence  a  con- 
dition of  membership;  nor  that  requires  unfer- 
mented  grape- juice  in  the  Holy  Communion;  nor 
instructs  its  members  to  vote  for  the  abolition 
of  the  liquor  traffic ;  nor  slurs  a  minister  for  drink- 
ing. The  Wesleyan  Methodists  do  none  of  these 
things;  nor  the  Primitive  Methodists;  nor  the 
United  Methodists.  The  Congregationalists  do 
none  of  them;  nor  the  Baptists.  The  Presby- 
terians do  not.  The  Unitarians  do  not.  At  the 
same  time,  the  Non-Conformist  ministers  are  com- 
ing more  and  more  to  be  total  abstainers,  and  are 
commending  it  to  their  people.  And  unfermented 
grape-juice  is  taking  the  place  of  wine  in  their 
Holy  Communion. 

Against  this  latter  practice  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land has  set  its  face.  Its  feeling  is  well  repre- 
sented in  the  following  letter  of  the  Et.  Eev.  Wm. 
Connor  Magee,  at  one  time  Bishop  of  Peterbor- 
ough, later  Archbishop  of  York : 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  199 

Palace  Peteebokough, 
December  21,  1884. 
To  Eev.  A.  F.  Aylard, 

"As  regards  the  use  of  unfermented  wine  in 
the  Eucharist,  the  case  is  entirely  different.  Its 
use  is,  in  my  judgment,  illegal,  the  Church  com- 
manding 'wine'  and  not  syrup  to  be  used.  It  is 
at  any  rate  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  for  eighteen  centuries,  and  there  is  no 
plea  of  expediency  to  excuse  it.  The  only  pos- 
sible plea  advanced  for  it  (and  it  is  a  weak  one) 
is  the  case  of  one  who  is  in  danger  of  relapsing 
into  intemperance,  if  he  even  in  communicating 
taste  or  smell  fermented  liquor.  Even  in  such  a 
case  I  hold  that  such  a  one  should  refrain  from 
communicating,  accepting  this  loss  of  privilege  as 
God's  punishment  and  chastening  for  his  sin,  and 
comforting  himself  with  the  teaching  of  our 
Church  that  he  who  being  unable  to  participate  for 
any  reason  does  by  faith  and  in  his  heart  feed 
on  Christ,  does  receive  the  benefit  of  His  Passion. 
But  the  case  you  describe  has  not  even  this  weak 
plea  for  it.  It  arises  simply  from  the  false  opin- 
ion entertained  by  Good  Templars  that  any  par- 
taking of  fermented  liquor  is  sin.  Those  who  hold 
this  opinion  are  not  diseased  by  intemperance  but 
misled  by  fanaticism. 

"To  administer  to  these  the  Holy  Communion 
otherwise  than  Christ  hath  commanded,  is  not  to 
strain  Christian  charity  out  of  pity  for  the  weak, 
it  is  to  pervert  a  Christian  ordinance  out  of  weak 
concession  to  the  heretical  opinions  of  those  who 
regard  themselves  as  strong  and  sounder  in  faith 


200  THE  CHURCH 

than  the  Church  and  their  pastor.  I  should  add 
that  this  practice  of  using  non-fermented  wine  in 
the  Eucharist  has  been  recently  condemned  by  the 
Upper  House,  and  if  I  remember  rightly,  by  the 
Lower  House  also,  of  Convocation  of  this  prov- 
ince. I  therefore  do  not  hesitate  to  advise,  but 
further  to  direct  you,  to  discontinue  it.  I  am  also 
clearly  of  opinion  that  this  should  be  done  openly, 
and  not  in  any  way  in  disguise  or  concealment, 
either  of  the  fact  or  of  your  reason  for  it. — Very 
faithfully  yours, 

W.  C.  Petebbokough." 

The  above  letter  is  dated  1884.  The  Eesolution 
of  the  house  of  bishops  in  the  United  States,  al- 
ready, quoted,  was  two  years  later.  And  two  years 
later  still  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1888,  speak- 
ing for  the  Anglican  Communion  throughout  the 
world,  more  strongly  affirmed  the  same  position  in 
the  following  Resolution: — ''That  the  Bishops 
assembled  in  this  Conference  declare  that  the  use 
of  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  or  any  liquid 
other  than  true  Wine,  diluted  or  undiluted,  as  the 
element  in  the  Administration  of  the  Cup  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  is  unwarranted  by  the  example 
of  our  Lord  and  is  an  unauthorized  departure 
from  the  custom  of  the  Catholic  Church". 

To  sum  up,  for  England :  most  Englishmen  are 
church-members,  and  most  Englishmen  believe  it 
right  to  drink. 

The  situation  of  the  church  in  other  English- 
speaking  countries  is  not  so  very  different  from 
that   in   England   or   the    United   States.     The 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  201 

greater  part  of  it  consecrates  and  drinks  an 
alcoliolic  beverage  in  tlie  Holy  Oommunion;  and 
an  even  greater  part  uses  drink  as  a  beverage. 

Ill 

When  it  comes  to  Christendom  as  a  whole,  the 
doctrine  of  total  abstinence  has  no  great  standing. 
It  has  some  vogue  in  the  Scandinavian  countries ; 
and  in  Finland ;  apart  from  these  and  Anglo-Sax- 
ondom,  little  or  none;  none  in  the  Latin  world; 
none  in  Eussia ;  none  in  the  East. 

Whitaker's  (Loudon)  Almanack  gives  Chris- 
tianity nearly  500,000,000  followers.  These  are 
divided  as  follows: 

Catholics   240,000,000 

Protestants   150,000,000 

Greek  Church 100,000,000 

Minor  Bodies 

Of  these  500,000,000  (which  include  children), 
not  more  than  40,000,000  of  population  can  be 
claimed  as  against  drink;  not  more  than  that  at 
the  outside,  inclusive  of  the  immature  children  of 
teetotalers.  In  Catholic  and  Greek  Christianity 
drinking  is  universal;  and  in  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity there  is  an  immense  preponderance  for  it. 

Besides,  there  are  10,000,000  Jews  in  Christen- 
dom,— all  actual  or  future  drinkers. 

The  rejection  of  unfermented  grape-juice  for 
the  Holy  Communion  by  historic  Christendom, 
without  exception,  is  all  the  more  significant  from 
the  fact  that,  equally  without  exception,  the  valid- 
ity of  this  beverage  for  the  Holy  Communion  is 


202  THE  CHURCH 

admitted,  and  has  been  admitted  from  primitive, 
or  at  least  early,  times  by  all  these  churches  of 
East  and  West  alike  (See  Notitia  Eucharistica,  by 
W.  E.  Scudamore,  Second  Edition,  pages  883- 
885).  The  juice  newly  expressed  from  ripe  grapes 
is  valid;  but  it  is  lawful  only  in  case  of  real 
necessity.  Otherwise,  however  valid,  it  is 
"gravely  illicit";  and  he  who  consecrates  it  comes 
under  the  severest  censure  of  the  church.  Thus, 
even  though  valid,  the  historic  churches  will  have 
none  of  it. 

''The  Holy  Church  throughout  all  the  world", 
then,  does  not  believe  drink  wrong:  it  believes  it 
right :  it  uses  it  in  its  holiest  worship :  it  sanctions 
it  as  a  beverage.  Total  abstinence,  as  a  principle, 
is  only  a  modern  rigorist  eccentricity;  at  outs  with 
the  Scriptures ;  at  outs  with  the  example  and  sol- 
emn precept  of  Jesus ;  at  outs  with  antiquity  and 
history;  at  outs  with  the  Church  of  God  today.  It 
is  provincial,  as  against  ecumenical;  sectarian,  as 
against  catholic;  novel,  as  against  ancient.  Total 
abstinence,  as  a  religious  obligation,  is  a  rigorist 
product.  Where  the  Catholic  Church  is  dominant, 
it  has  no  standing.  Where  the  Lutheran  Churches 
are  dominant,  it  has  a  limited  or  no  standing. 
Where  the  Episcopal  Church  is  strong,  it  has  little 
or  no  standing.  Apply  this  test  to  regions  and 
localities,  and  see  if  it  does  not  hold.  Either  it 
is  rigorist,  and  not  Christian;  or  it  is  Christian, 
and  Christendom  is  not.  This  is  not  a  hostile 
judgment;  it  is  rigorism's  own;  for  it  makes  the 
attitude  to  drink  crucial  for  the  faith.  It  declares 
that  it  cannot  be  true  to  the  Bible  and  tolerate 


THE  TEMPERANCE  MOVEMENT  203 

drink.  But  Christendom  declares  that  it  cannot 
be  true  to  the  Bible  and  condemn  drink.  The  con- 
tradiction is  irreconcilable. 

And  rigorism  is  posed  with  this  hard  challenge : 
Can  a  single  leader  in  the  church  of  God  (not  a 
professed  ascetic)  be  named,  throughout  the  en- 
tire history  of  Revelation,  from  the  call  of  Abra- 
ham till  the  year  1800,  who  refrained  from  drink, 
or  counselled  others  to  refrain  from  drink,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  wrong? 


CHAPTER   VI 

PROHIBITION 


The  religious  principle  of  total  abstinence  was 
not  tested  on  any  general  scale,  in  Christendom, 
since  those  early  heretics,  for  the  good  reason  that 
Christians  did  not  think  such  a  test  needed,  till 
the  19th  Century.  In  the  last  century  it  has  had 
many  tests,  though,  till  lately,  only  among  Puri- 
tans. And  here  let  me  call  attention  to  a  remark- 
able characteristic  of  this  movement,  in  the  light 
of  some  first  principles  about  which,  in  the  ab- 
stract, Christians  ought  not  to  differ. 

A  man  abstains  from  drink,  while  admitting  its 
rightfulness,  because  he  does  not  care  for  it;  or 
because  he  judges  it  best  for  his  health;  or  be- 
cause he  thinks  his  example  will  help  a  weak 
brother,  perhaps  in  his  own  household.  Or,  again, 
a  man  abstains,  because  he  thinks  the  Scriptures 
require  it.  Now,  in  every  one  of  these  cases,  think- 
ing as  he  does,  he  is  right  in  doing  as  he  does.  No 
one  can  justly  find  fault  with  him.  What  he  does, 
in  this  matter,  is,  in  fact,  his  own  business,  no  one 
else's.  He,  not  some  one  else,  is  responsible  for 
his  course:  ''To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or 
falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be  made  to  stand"  (Rom. 
14.4). 

Further;  any  one  who  believes  total  abstinence 
a  Christian  duty  has  a  right  to  persuade  others  to 

204 


PROHIBITION  205 

this  belief  and  practice,  if  lie  can.  Only  he  must 
remember  to  speak  the  truth  (as  he  sees  it)  in 
love.  He  must  recognize  in  others  the  same  right 
to  search  the  Scriptures  ''whether  these  things 
are  so",  and  to  frame  their  conduct  accordingly, 
as  he  exercises  himself, — especially  as  his  is  the 
novel  and  exceptional,  not  the  common  and  long 
received,  view.  Not  only  Christian  obligation, 
but  mere  common  modesty,  would  suggest  a  tone 
respectful,  however  positive,  in  his  propaganda. 
He  must  not  dictate :  he  must  not  abuse :  he  must 
not  use  force.  If  he  cannot  win  by  example  and 
appeal,  still  he  has  done  his  whole  duty.  If  he  go 
further,  he  falls  into  the  sin,  without  the  excuse, 
of  the  Sons  of  Thunder,  who  would  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  on  those  who  would  not  hear;  ''But 
he  turned  and  rebuked  them"  (Luke  9.54-55). 

Now  the  Temperance  Movement  began  with  a  full 
recognition  of  these  elementary  Gospel  principles. 
At  first,  it  was  an  appeal  to  men's  conscience  and 
judgment.  It  was  a  moral  force  wholly.  At  its 
very  beginning,  men  and  women  were  urged  to 
pledge  themselves  to  moderation  in  their  drink: 
hence  the  term  Temperance  Movement.  Soon,  how- 
ever, this  simple  requirement  gave  way  to  a  pledge 
to  total  abstinence  from  "spirits",  with  only-^ 
moderate  indulgence  in  wine  and  beer.  The  title 
Temperance  was  retained,  though  now  only  in  part 
applicable.  And  then  total  abstinence  from  all 
drink  was  exacted,  still  as  a  voluntary  matter,  and 
still  under  the  denomination  of  Temperance,  a 
term  now  altogether  misapplied.  And  then  fol- 
lowed the  fourth  stage,  substituting  force  for  con- 


206  THE  CHURCH 

science.  The  disciples  of  the  new  crusade  thrust 
their  movement  into  politics;  campaigns  were 
waged  about  it;  offices,  salaries,  honors  were 
fought  for  in  its  name.  This  change  of  policy 
was,  in  effect,  a  declaration  that  moral  and  re- 
ligious influences  were  not  enough,  that  something 
more  effective  than  education  and  suasion  was 
needed,  and  that  something  was  force.  With 
this  view,  it  was  inevitable  that  the  moral  effort 
toward  inculcating  personal  sobriety  should  fall 
into  the  background,  and  at  last  be  lost  to  sight; 
and  this  is  w^hat  has  happened.  The  Temperance 
Movement  today  makes  little  effort,  by  personal 
appeal,  or  by  the  provision  of  counter  interests, 
to  win  men  individually  or  generally  from  intem- 
perance. It  relies  on  the  written  law  to  make  and 
keep  men  sober. 

This  change  of  policy  was  of  an  importance  that 
can  hardly  be  overstated,  for  it  made  the  Tem- 
perance Movement  theocratic;  that  is,  a  move- 
ment to  put  the  church  in  control  of  the  state.  The 
goal  of  the  Prohibition  Movement  is  just  that,  and 
the  logic  of  the  position  is  sweeping  along  to 
that  goal  unwitting  multitudes,  who  would  balk, 
if  they  saw  early  enough  what  they  were  coming 
to.  Here,  in  proof,  is  a  declaration  from  a  plat- 
form of  the  Prohibition  Party  of  Ohio :  The  Pro- 
hibition Party  of  Ohio  .  .  .  recognizing  Al- 
mighty God,  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  and 
accepting  the  law  of  God  as  the  ultimate  standard 
of  right  .  .  .  the  initiative  and  referendum 
in  all  matters  of  legislation  not  distinctively  moral. 
Now  here  is  a  political  party,  seeking  control  of 


PROHIBITION  207 

the  nation  and  all  its  parts, — and  it  puts  in  the 
front  of  its  platform  ''Almighty  God,  as  revealed 
in  Jesus  Christ".  Jews,  agnostics,  unorthodox 
have  no  place  in  this  party,  and  they  would  have 
none  in  the  country,  except  on  sufferance.  The 
Prohibition  Party  would  put  ''the  law  of  God", 
as  gathered  from  the  Bible  by  themselves,  on  the 
statute  book,  and  set  the  police  to  enforcing  it. 
This  is  pure  theocracy,  such  as  was  the  ideal  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  We  supposed  we  had  gotten 
beyond  all  that ;  but  here  it  is,  facing  us  again,  in 
the  20th  Century,  in  America !  The  world  moves, 
— in  a  circle! 

II 

The  political  fortunes  of  this  religious  propa- 
ganda have  been  various.  It  has  controlled  a 
number  of  states  at  times,  and  does  now.  In  fact, 
it  has  undertaken  to  see  that  the  whole  country 
shall  be  under  the  prohibition  regimen  within  half 
a  dozen  years.  Nearly  one-half  of  our  population 
is  said  to  be  under  political  teetotalism.  The 
mother  State  of  this  propaganda  is  Maine,  with 
an  experience  of  about  two  generations.  Kansas 
has  had  it  for  a  generation;  North  Dakota,  well 
on  toward  a  generation.  Several  other  States 
have  adopted  this  policy  recently.  But  far  the 
greater  part  of  our  teetotal  population  is  under 
county  or  other  district  prohibition.  In  England 
the  total  abstinence  movement  has  adopted  quite 
a  different  policy,  and  has  achieved  no  such 
growth  as  in  the  United  States.  On  the  whole, 
however,  the  religious  principle  of  total  absti- 


208  THE  CHURCH 

nence  has  had  a  fair  test,  wherever  there  has  been 
enough  demand  for  it,  with  weapons  of  its  own 
choosing.  The  question  before  us  is  how  much, 
or  how  little,  religion  has  profited  from  this  new 
policy. 

Ill 

Certain  characteristics  of  interest  to  church  and 
religion  can  be  plainly  read  in  the  Temperance 
Movement  through  its  hundred  years'  history. 
These  are  worth  enumerating. 

First,  for  our  own  country; — and  bear  in  mind 
the  purpose  of  this  propaganda, — the  diffusion  of 
the  principle  and  practice  of  total  abstinence,  as 
something  required  by  the  Almighty. 

1. — Its  inspiration  is  purely  religious. 

2. — While  religious,  it  is  sectarian.  Catholicism, 
Episcopalianism,  Lutheranism  will  have  none  of 
it, — not  to  speak  of  Judaism. 

3. — ^^The  religious  motive  expresses  itself  in  a 
physical  force  movement,  through  law,  having 
long  since  despaired  of  moral  suasion. 

4. — The  Movement  is  rural,  not  urban.  No  con- 
siderable city  in  this  country  offers  any  encour- 
agement to  Teetotalism  by  Force.  "Worcester, 
Mass.,  is  the  largest  city  that  has  voluntarily  tried 
it;  and  Worcester  tired  of  it  in  a  single  year. 
Birmingham,  Alabama,  rid  itself  of  it  at  the  first 
opportunity.  It  seems  as  if  growth,  expansion, 
prosperity,  beyond  a  certain  point,  in  any  city, 
were  fatal  to  prohibition. 

This  appears  to  be  true  of  States  also.  Few 
know  that  New  York  State  once  had  prohibition, 


PROHIBITION  209 

for  a  brief  period ;  that  Massachusetts  had  it ;  and 
Ehode  Island;  and  Connecticut;  and  Ohio;  and 
Indiana ;  and  Michigan ;  and  Illinois ;  and  Wiscon- 
sin. As  these  States  developed,  and  their  cities 
multiplied  and  grew,  they  rejected  prohibition. 
New  Hampshire  has  done  this,  since  its  cities  be- 
gan to  forge  ahead.  Now  the  States  of  the  South 
that  have  taken  up  prohibition  are,  industrially, 
where  these  other  States  were  when  they  experi- 
mented with  this  policy.  Will  they,  too,  turn  their 
backs  on  it,  with  progress  and  diversification?  It 
is  noteworthy  that  Maine,  Kansas,  and  North 
Dakota  have  no  considerable  industrial  centers. 
If  any  should  arise  and  promise  greatness,  what 
will  be  the  effect  on  prohibition  in  those  States? 
Now  it  is  everywhere  felt  that  a  state  exclu- 
sively agricultural,  or  non-industrial,  is  incom- 
plete. It  is  the  proper  ambition  of  every  State 
to  develop  great  cities  within  it.  If  it  is  to  be 
one-sided  in  any  direction,  it  would  choose  to  be 
urban  rather  than  rural,  like  Ehode  Island.  What 
would  this  little  State  amount  to,  if  consisting  of 
farms?  As  it  is,  it  fills  a  place  in  the  public  eye, 
and  wields  an  influence  in  the  national  counsels, 
out  of  all  relation  to  its  size  and  population.  This 
faith  in  the  city  may,  or  may  not,  be  a  good  thing ; 
but  it  is  universal  in  our  country,  and  in  every 
other  progressive  country.  The  farming  popula- 
tion are  as  eager  to  see  the  cities  grow  as  the  ur- 
banites  themselves.  The  whole  of  our  South  is  a 
unit  in  believing  that  an  indispensable  require- 
ment in  realizing  its  magnificent  possibilities  is 
the  building  up  of  great  cities ;  and  it  points  with 


210  THE  CHURCH 

pride  to  the  growth  of  those  it  has.  The  steady 
trend  of  population  to  the  cities,  with  their  con- 
sequent political  aggrandizement,  makes  the 
Prohibition  cause  a  problem.  The  cities,  with 
their  great  populations,  and  immense  power  and 
prestige,  are  gaining  influence  throughout  the 
country ;  and  the  cities  are  against  Teetotalism  by 
Force.  In  fact,  they  are  against  teetotalism  of 
any  sort.  And  no  less  acute  a  philosopher  of  so- 
ciety than  Frederick  C.  Howe  has  written  a  book 
entitled  ''The  City,  the  Hope  of  Democracy".  To 
be  sure,  the  city  can  be  over-grown  too:  there 
should  be  a  balance  between  city  and  country. 
But  improved  farming  means  less  farming;  and 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  anticipate  a  halt 
or  stop  in  the  present  city-ward  trend  for  a  long 
time  to  come.  The  "Back  to  the  Land"  oratory 
is  an  exhortation  by  some  city  people  to  other  city 
people  to  go  back  to  the  land:  the  orators  them- 
selves have  no  thought  of  going  back. 

Moreover,  every  great  city  gives  the  tone  to  a 
considerable  rural  territory  ministering  to  it;  as 
New  York  and  Brooklyn  to  Long  Island.  The 
permeation  of  Long  Island  by  city  ideas  and  city 
people  has  virtually  blotted  out  prohibition  from 
one  end  of  it  to  the  other. 

Teetotalism  has  thus  far  failed  to  impress  even 
a  single  city  of  the  first  or  second  class. 

5. — The  Temperance  Movement  has  proclaimed 
itself  the  champion  of  Church  and  Home.  If  so, 
prohibition  communities  should  show  fewer  di- 
vorces and  larger  church  membership  per  capita 
than  license  communities.     Fortunately,  on  both 


PROHIBITION  211 

these  subjects,  we  have  Government  statistics ;  for 
Marriage  and  Divorce,  for  the  twenty  years  end- 
ing in  1906;  for  Religious  Bodies,  the  religious 
census  of  1906.    What  do  these  statistics  show? 

(a)  For  the  Family. — Let  us  take  the  three  old- 
time  prohibition  States,  Maine,  Kansas,  and  North 
Dakota;  and,  on  the  other  side,  the  three  States 
that  are  the  most  liberal  in  the  whole  Union  in 
their  attitude  to  drink.  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Nebraska.  The  U.  S.  Census  furnishes  the 
following  divorce  figures  for  these  six  States,  as 
well  as  for  the  groups  to  which  they  belong,  and 
for  the  Continental  United  States  as  a  whole; 

Divorces,  Annual  Average  for  the  5  years  of 
which  the  year  stated  is  the  median  year,  per 
100,000  population. 

1870  1880  1890  1900 

Continental  U.  S 29  38  53  73 

North  Atlantic  Division ...  26  28  31  38 

Maine  61  78  88  117 

New  Jersey..... 9  13  18  23 

Pennsylvania    18  21  27  35 

North  Central  Division ...  45  55  71  96 

Kansas 51  44  84  109 

North  Dakota —  46  47  88 

Nebraska   29  43  71  82 

Among  these  two  groups  (arranged  in  the 
Table,  however,  not  as   groups,  but  geographi- 


213  THE  CHURCH 

cally),  tlie  one  the  prohibition  group,  and  the  other 
very  ''wet",  the  average  for  the  latest  period 
given  in  the  Table  is  104  2/3  for  the  prohibition 
states,  per  100,000  of  population;  whereas  the 
average  for  the  "wet"  states  is  only  46  2/3. 

We  might  suppose  that  the  bad  divorce  record 
of  these  prohibition  States  has  been  due  to  causes 
unrelated  to  drink,  were  this  not  an  admission 
that,  in  these  instances  anyway,  it  is  not  drink  that 
breaks  up  homes,  but  something  else ;  and  that,  in 
the  three  "wet"  States,  it  is  not  total  abstinence 
that  holds  them  together,  but  something  else.  In 
other  words,  drink  is  not  the  home-destroyer ;  tee- 
totalism  is  not  the  home-preserver.  At  most, 
these  are  but  elements  contributing  to  the  result. 

But,  if  it  be  said  that  it  is  in  fact  drink,  in  spite 
of  the  prohibitory  legislation,  that  has  broken  up 
these  Maine,  Kansas,  and  North  Dakota  homes, 
then  this  is  an  admission  that  drink  is  not  got  rid 
of  by  prohibition. 

Note,  secondly,  that  in  this  Government  table 
the  State  with  the  longest  prohibition  record  has 
the  worst  divorce  record,  Maine;  that  the  State 
with  the  next  longest  has  the  next  worst,  Kansas ; 
whereas  the  State  with  the  shortest  prohibition 
record  is  best  off,  in  this  direction.  North  Dakota. 
The  longer  the  record  of  prohibition  in  these 
States,  the  weaker  the  family  tie. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  two  oldest  of  the  three 
"wet"  States,  which  have  never  been  anything 
but  "wet",  are  far  better  off,  as  to  the  family, 
than  Nebraska,  which  once  was  "dry".  If  allow- 
ance be  made  for  the  very  much  smaller  divorce 


PROHIBITION  213 

figures  of  the  ''wet"  States  to  start  with,  the  in- 
crease in  divorce  in  the  period  covered  by  the 
table,  in  two  groups,  is  discouraging  to  prohibi- 
tionists. 

And  further:  the  divorce  figures  for  the  three 
''dry"  States  are  far  above  the  average  for  the 
whole  country, — for  Maine,  117  as  against  a  na- 
tional average  of  73 ;  for  Kansas,  109 ;  for  North 
Dakota,  88; — and,  in  the  case  of  Maine  and  Kan- 
sas, far  above  the  average  of  the  Divisions  to 
which  they  belong,— for  Maine,  117  as  against  the 
North  Atlantic  Division  average  of  38;  for  Kan- 
sas, 109  as  against  the  North  Central  Division 
average  of  96.  North  Dakota  alone  is  below  the 
Division  average,  but  not  so  much  below  it, — 88  as 
against  96.  But  of  the  three  "wet"  States  two 
are  below  the  national  average, — namely  New  Jer- 
sey and  Pennsylvania;  and  all  three  are  below 
the  group  averages. 

Now  let  us  view  divorce  in  its  relation,  not  to 
population,  but  to  marriage.  We  will  take  the 
three  old-time  "dry"  States,  Maine,  Kansas,  and 
North  Dakota,  and  compare  them,  in  this  aspect, 
with  the  same  very  "wet"  States,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Nebraska;  and,  in  addition, 
with  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin,  which  are  typical 
local  option  States, — that  is,  wet  in  the  cities,  dry 
in  the  country.  The  Government  affords  for  these 
States  the  following  facts : 

KATIO  OP  DIVORCES  TO  MAERIAGES  FROM  1887  TO  1906 

Maine,  one  divorce  to     6  marriages 

Kansas,  one  divorce  to    9  marriages 


214  THE  CHURCH 

North  Dakota,  one  divorce  to  10  marriages 

Wisconsin,  one  divorce  to  15  marriages 

New  Jersey,  one  divorce  to  45  marriages 

Pennsylvania,  one  divorce  to  22  marriages 

Minnesota,  one  divorce  to  15  marriages 

Nebraska,  one  divorce  to  10  marriages 

Compare  these  ratios  of  divorce  to  marriage 
with  that  for  the  whole  country  for  this  period : 

Whole  country 1  to  I31/2 

Maine    1  to    6 

Kansas   1  to    9 

North  Dakota 1  to  10 

In  the  North  Central  Division,  with  twelve 
States, 

The  ratio  is 1  to  lOi/g 

Kansas   1  to    9 

North  Dakota 1  to  10 

Nebraska    1  to  10 

Wisconsin 1  to  15 

Minnesota 1  to  15 

The  best  record  in  the  entire  country  is  held  by 
New  Jersey,  the  "wettest"  State  in  the  Union, 
with  its  ratio  of  1  divorce  to  45  marriages  (South 
Carolina  does  not  permit  divorce).  North  Da- 
kota is  31st  from  the  top  of  the  list ;  Kansas,  35th ; 
and  Maine,  46th,  almost  at  the  bottom. 

No  doubt,  many  factors,  as  race,  religion,  in- 
dustry, geography,  enter  into  these  results;  but, 
teetotalism  being  one  of  the  most  striking  of  the 


PROHIBITION  215 

social  facts  in  these  States,  it  must  accept  its  share 
of  responsibility  for  the  shameful  state  of  the 
family.  At  all  events,  where  enforced  teetotalism 
has  been  tried  on  the  most  extensive  scale,  and 
for  the  longest  time,  it  has  not  conserved  the 
family. 

But  what  is  the  effect  of  teetotalism  on  church 
membership  f  AVhere  this  doctrine  prevails,  does 
the  Church  flourish? 

Maine,  the  mother  of  prohibition,  with  an  ex- 
perience of  nearly  two  generations  with  this  pol- 
icy, according  to  the  Religious  Census  of  1906, 
occupies  a  low  place  in  the  figures  of  church  mem- 
bership. Of  the  nine  States  in  the  North  Atlantic 
Division,  it  had  the  lowest  percentage  of  church 
members  to  the  population:  only  29.8  of  every 
100  persons  in  prohibition  Maine  were  church 
members.  The  highest  State  in  this  division  was 
Rhode  Island,  having  54  per  cent,  with  a  poj^ula- 
tion  living  almost  wholly  under  license.  New 
Jersey,  the  wide  open  State,  so  called,  had  39  per 
cent,  10  per  cent  more  than  Maine ;  and  Pennsyl- 
vania had  43  per  cent. 

The  North  Central  Division  includes  twelve 
States.  The  lowest  church  membership  of  the 
twelve  is  in  prohibition  Kansas,  with  28.4  per 
cent,  lower  even  than  Maine.  The  highest  State 
in  this  group  is  "Wisconsin,  with  44 . 3  per  cent,  the 
State  long  renowned  for  its  beer, — so  renowned 
that  many  years  ago  I  saw  in  a  beer  garden  in  the 
city  of  Hannover,  this  sign,  "Importirtes  Mil- 
waukee Bier"!    In  this  same  North  Central  Divi- 


216  THE  CHURCH 

sion  belongs  North  Dakota,  with  a  church  member- 
ship of  34.3  to  each  100  of  the  population.  Ne- 
braska, however,  has  only  32.4  per  cent,  being 
higher  than  Kansas  and  lower  than  North  Dakota. 
Be  it  noted  that  the  percentage  of  church  mem- 
bership to  the  population  of  the  whole  country  is 
39.1;  so  that  these  three  thorough  prohibition 
States,  Maine,  Kansas,  and  North  Dakota,  are  con- 
siderably below  the  general  average  of  church 
membership.  In  fact,  in  the  list  of  States,  ar- 
ranged according  to  church  membership,  North 
Dakota  is  36th  from  the  top ;  Maine,  44th ;  Kansas, 
45th ; — Oklahoma  being  49th  and  last. 

The  figures  show  at  least  this,  that  teetotalism 
does  not  build  up  the  Church,  and  that  drink  does 
not  break  it  down.  The  Church  is  weakest,  very 
often,  where  the  teetotal  spirit  is  strong.  And  it 
is  strongest,  sometimes,  where  the  teetotal  spirit 
is  weakest. 

I  recall  here  a  magazine  article  by  the  Gov- 
ernor of  New  Hampshire,  some  fifteen  to  twenty 
years  ago,  that  State  having  then  for  a  long  period 
been  under  prohibition,  in  which  he  lamented  the 
lapse  of  rural  New  Hampshire  into  virtual  pagan- 
ism. That  condition  has  been  radically  changed 
by  the  great  influx  of  French  Canadians,  with 
their  intense  religionism  and  their  hospitality  to 
drink. 

It  is  a  matter  of  almost  weekly  experience  with 
city  clergymen  to  receive  appeals  for  help  from 
struggling  churches  in  States  wholly,  or  largely, 
under  prohibition.  Even  Kansas,  with  all  its 
prosperity,  has  to  appeal  to  New  York  and  Penn- 


PROHIBITION  217 

sylvania  and  Massachusetts  and  Illinois  for  lielp 
to  keep  its  churches  alive.  According  to  the  tee- 
total reasoning,  it  ought  to  be  the  other  way. 
But,  in  fact,  are  there  many  drinking  communities 
in  this  country  that  ask  help  of  a  teetotal  com- 
munity for  their  churches!  Or  many  prohibition 
communities  (of  any  considerable  extent)  that  do 
not  ask  such  help  of  license  communities!  In 
fact,  it  seems  to  be  the  great  license  communities 
that,  by  their  contributions,  are  keeping  religion, 
or  at  least  the  church,  alive  in  many  a  prohibition 
community.  Missionaries  from  these  "dry" 
places  swarm  the  great  "wet"  centers,  as  regu- 
larly as  the  seasons, — Chicago,  Boston,  New  York, 
New  Orleans,  Philadelphia,  San  Francisco. 
"Wet"  religion  supports  itself,  and  helps  to  sup- 
port "dry"  religion  as  well.  Were  it  not  for  this 
"wet"  support,  many  a  dry  community  would  go 
bankrupt  religiously. 

In  this  sense,  and  to  this  extent,  we  must  recog- 
nize, however  regretfully,  that  "drink"  money 
helps  to  maintain  the  teetotal  churches. 

When  I  use  the  word  "communities",  I  mean 
actual,  distinct  communities,  not  what  are  virtu- 
ally "wet"  and  "dry"  divisions  of  the  one  com- 
munity, such  as  Boston  and  its  suburbs. 

Are  we  to  consider  this  not  infrequent  associa- 
tion of  religious  poverty  and  weakness  with  tee- 
totalism  an  accident;  as  well  as  the  association  of 
freedom  to  drink  with  a  strong  religious  com- 
munal life!  Or  is  there  a  connection  between  the 
two  sets  of  facts? 


218  THE  CHURCH 

IV 

This  coincidence  of  teetotalism,  where  it  has 
long  prevailed,  with  a  decayed  home  and  church 
life  might,  perhaps,  be  offset,  if  it  were  driving 
drink  out.  But  the  consumption  of  drink  in  this 
country  has  for  a  long  while  been,  on  the  whole, 
increasing,  not  only  in  quantity,  but  per  capita. 
The  following  table  from  the  Statistical  Abstract 
of  the  United  States  for  1912,  shows  the  quan- 
tities consumed,  and  the  average  annual  consump- 
tion, per  capita,  of  distilled  spirits,  wines,  and 
malt  liquors  in  this  country,  from  1870. 

Distilled  spirits  Wines 
Galls. 
.32 
.47 
.48 
.27 
.39 
.65 
.58 
.67 
.65 
.67 
.58 

1913,    distilled    spirits,   over    0    million    gallons   more   than    in 
1912;   malt  liquors,   nearly  3,150,000  barrels  more  than  in  1912. 
(Internal  Revenue  Report  for  1913.) 

The  Temperance  Movement,  then,  is  not  driving 
drink  out.  Far  from  it :  our  per  capita  consump- 
tion of  drink  is  increasing.    There  is  no  explaining 

*Average  for  the  period. 


Years 

Galls. 

1870 

2.07 

1871-80* 

1.39 

1881-90* 

1.34 

1896 

1.01 

1900 

1.28 

1907 

1.58 

1908 

1.39 

1909 

1.32 

1910 

1.42 

1911 

1.46 

1912 

1.44 

Malt 

All  liquors 

liquors 

and  wines 

Galls. 

Galls. 

5.31 

7.70 

6.93 

8.79 

11.38 

13.21 

15.85 

17.12 

16.09 

17.76 

20.56 

22.79 

20.26 

22.22 

19.07 

21.06 

19.79 

22.19 

20.66 

22.79 

19.96 

21.98 

PROHIBITION  219 

this  clear,  conclusive  fact  away:  it  is  a  fact  that 
needs  no  interpreter, — the  American  people  are 
drinking  more,  not  less.  Prohibition  may  point  to 
the  vast  territory  acknowledging  it:  but  the  con- 
sumption of  drink  is  increasing.  Prohibition  may 
point  to  the  great  and  growing  proportion  of  the 
population  living  under  it:  but  the  consumption 
of  drink  is  increasing.  The  vital  fact  is  evidently 
not  the  law,  but  the  growing  consumption  of 
drink.  The  clear  and  striking  fact  for  the  United 
States  is  this:  the  more  prohibition,  the  more 
drink.  I  am  not  saying  that  there  is  any  relation 
between  the  two  facts.  I  am  not  saying  that  with 
less  prohibition  there  would  not  be  still  more 
drink.  I  am  simply  saying  that  prohibition  has 
gone  on  increasing,  and  drink  has  gone  on  increas- 
ing. Prohibition  aims  to  stop  drink,  and  drink 
has  not  stopped ;  it  has  increased. 

V 

At  the  same  time,  drink  is  decreasing  in  Europe, 
where  there  is  no  prohibition,  to  speak  of.  The 
abler  leaders  of  the  movement  in  this  country 
frankly  recognize  this  anomaly.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  in  The  Continent,  of  Chicago, 
calls  it  "the  riddle  of  reformers  the  world  over" 
that  ''countries  with  little  or  no  prohibition  are 
decisively  reducing  the  national  per  capita  con- 
sumption of  liquors,  while  the  United  States,  with 
more  prohibition  than  any  other  country,  has 
never  succeeded  in  accomplishing  such  reduction 
in  the  nation  as  a  whole,  except  temporarily  in 
years  of  financial  depression." 


220  THE  CHURCH 

He  adds, — "The  fact  to  be  faced  is  that  Ger- 
many, with  no  prohibition  and  no  temperance  les- 
son laws,  is  steadily  reducing  the  per  capita  con- 
sumption of  liquors  by  out-of-sehool  temperance 
education  and  organization. 

"Bulgaria,  with  no  prohibition,  has  only  one- 
eighth  as  large  a  per  capita  consumption  as  Ger- 
many and  only  one-fourth  as  large  as  ours. 

"In  Holland,  with  no  help  from  legislation, 
there  has  been  a  per  capita  reduction. 

"In  Great  Britain  there  has  been  a  reduction  of 
consumption,  with  not  even  a  local  option  law, 
until  recently  for  Scotland  only. 

"Norway,  with  only  a  little  'dry'  territory  as 
yet,  has  reduced  the  consumption  and  consequences 
of  drink. 

' '  In  Sweden  there  is  reduced  consumption  also, 
with  little  aid  from  law  as  yet." 

He  speaks  further  of  "the  amazing  failure  of 
Americans  to  reduce  our  per  capita  consumption 
of  liquors  and  the  non-enforcement  of  'dry'  laws, 
which  partly  explains  it". 

He  avers:  "that  we  have  grossly  neglected  edu- 
cational temperance  work  in  public  schools  and 
even  in  Sunday-schools,  and  most  of  all  out  of 
schools". 

The  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  declares,  to  the 
same  effect:  "While  expenditure  for  drink  has 
steadily  fallen  in  the  United  Kingdom  since  1899, 
it  has  as  steadily  risen  in  the  United  States ;  and, 
w^hereas  in  1888  the  expenditure  in  the  former  was 
41  per  cent  higher  than  in  the  latter,  the  two  had 
drawTi  equal  in  1906  and  since  then  have  changed 


PROHIBITION  221 

places.  .  .  .  The  comparison  is  of  much  in- 
terest in  view  of  the  very  different  laws  and  regu- 
lations under  which  the  trade  is  conducted  in  the 
two  countries"  (Enc.  Brit.  "Temperance",  ]page 
584, — the  conclusion  being  based  on  estimates  from 
the  Prohibition  Year  Book). 

It  may  be  said  that,  had  it  not  been  for  this 
Temperance  Movement,  the  consumption  of  drink 
would  have  been  much  greater.  It  may  be  so. 
Again,  it  is  thinkable  that,  in  the  absence  of  the 
extreme  and  unconditional  Temperance  Movement 
which  has  pre-empted  the  field,  another  sort  of  re- 
form in  the  matter  of  intemperance  might  have 
arisen  and  accomplished  more,  not  only  for  mod- 
eration, but  for  total  abstinence  as  well. 

Another  thing. — The  church  membership  of  this 
country  was  put  by  the  last  religious  census  at 
32,936,445,  out  of  an  estimated  population  of 
84,246,252.  But  this  does  not  mean  the  church 
population.  It  excludes  virtually  all  Protestant 
children;  all  Roman  Catholic  children  under  9 
years  of  age;  all  Jews  except  heads  of  families. 
It  excludes  also  that  large  number  of  persons  who 
are  church  members  in  all  but  name ;  who  attend 
church;  who  contribute  to  its  support;  who  be- 
lieve in  it,  and  follow  its  teachings ;  but  who  have 
not  formally  professed  their  allegiance.  Now,  if 
to  the  Government  figures  for  church  membership 
we  add  the  children  of  members,  and  also  these 
virtual  members  with  their  children,  the  church 
population  becomes  very  nearly  the  same  as  the 
country 's  population.  That  is,  what  the  people  of 
this  country  do,  the  Church,  in  its  large  sense, 


222  THE  CHURCH 

Jewish  and  Christian,  does,  so  far  as  what  is  done 
is  of  concern  to  the  church.  This  growing  con- 
sumption of  drink,  then,  is  among  church  people. 
It  is  church  people  who  are  drinking  these  vast 
quantities  of  drink.  We  cannot  say  that  this  rep- 
resents a  universal  rebellion  on  the  part  of  the 
membership  against  Church  authority,  for  an 
apostasy  so  universal  and  persistent  would  be 
fatal,  even  if  possible.  The  fact  is,  the  Church  as 
a  whole  is  tolerant  of  drink,  except  when  it  is  ob- 
viously excess. 


CHAPTER   VII 

INTEMPEEANCE 


Yet  more  drink,  in  our  national  history,  does  not 
mean  more  drunkenness :  paradox  as  it  is,  it  means 
less.  There  was  never  so  little  intemperance 
among  us  as  today.  There  is  more  drinking,  and 
less  drunkenness.  The  Church  has  always  in- 
sisted that  sobriety  was  consistent  with  drinking; 
and  experience  seems  to  confirm  this  ancient  wis- 
dom. That  intemperance  is  less  common  today 
than  ever  before  in  our  history  need  not  be  dem- 
onstrated :  everybody  knows  it.  For  example, — to 
go  back  to  the  Old  World, — recall  how  the  novelist 
Smollett  (died  in  1771)  relates  that  the  public 
houses  in  London  put  up  signboards  inviting 
people  to  be  ''drunk  for  a  penny",  and  ''dead 
drunk  for  2d ' ',  with  ' '  straw  for  nothing"  on  which 
to  sleep  off  the  debauch.  Lord  Lonsdale,  too, 
speaking  in  the  house  of  lords,  in  1743,  said: 
*'In  every  part  of  this  great  metropolis,  whoever 
shall  pass  along  the  streets  will  find  wretchedness 
stretched  upon  the  pavement,  insensible  and  mo- 
tionless, and  only  removed  by  the  charity  of  pas- 
sengers from  the  danger  of  being  crushed  by 
carriages  or  trampled  by  horses  or  strangled  with 
filth  in  the  common  sewers".  And,  as  late  as 
1834,  witnesses  described,  before  a  select  commit- 
tee of  the  house  of  commons,  as  scenes  that  regu- 

223 


224  THE  CHURCH 

larly  occurred  on  Sunday  morning  in  London, 
''crowds  around  the  public  houses,  women  with 
babies  to  which  they  gave  gin,  and  people  lying 
dead  drunk  in  the  streets". 

Intemperance  in  this  country  never  reached  such 
a  pass.  But  in  both  countries  the  forward  move- 
ment has  been  concurrent.  No  such  conditions  as 
those  just  described  are  found  in  England  today; 
and  the  hard  drinking  of  a  hundred  years  ago 
in  this  country  is  equally  a  thing  of  the  past.  Yet 
the  striking  fact  is  not  the  disappearance  of  drink, 
but  the  temperance  in  its  use.  It  is  the  excess 
that  is  cut  out,  not  the  drink. 

The  Temperance  Movement  does  not  aim  to  en- 
courage moderation  in  drinking,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  supjDOsed  that  it  has  brought  it  about  without 
aiming  at  it.  It  has  aimed  to  eliminate  drink ;  and 
drink  is  in  evidence  everywhere.  How,  then,  shall 
we  account  for  the  lessening  intemperance?  for 
the  fact  that  workingmen  are  about  as  prompt  at 
their  work  Monday  morning  as  any  other  day  of 
the  week?  for  the  fact  that  intoxication  is  so  very 
rare  among  business  and  professional  men,  even 
in  their  hours  off?  A  hundred  years  ago  it  was 
no  great  sin  to  get  drunk.  A  man  did  not  lose 
caste  by  it.  But  today  he  does ;  and,  if  he  offend 
often,  he  is  banned,  both  in  society  and  business. 
How  has  all  this  come  about? 


II 

To  answer  this  question  satisfactorily,  we  must 
first    know     from    what    causes     intemperance 


INTEMPERANCE  225 

springs ;  and  the  principal  of  these  a  careful  exam- 
ination will,  I  think,  show  to  be  as  follows. — 

I. — Idleness. — The  idle  rich  drink  to  excess  be- 
cause they  do  not  know  what  else  to  do.  The  idle 
poor  drink  to  excess;  some  because  they  cannot 
find  work,  and  so  seek  to  forget  their  troubles ;  and 
some  are  lazy,  like  the  idle  rich. 

II. — Overwork. — Some  rich  men  overwork  from 
ambition;  some  poor  men,  from  necessity.  In 
both  cases,  exhausted  nature,  in  lieu  of  rest,  de- 
mands a  stimulant;  and  the  stimulant  is  pretty 
sure  to  be  abused. 

III. — The  dulness  and  monotony  of  life. — 
People  will  have  relaxation.  If  wholesome  relaxa- 
tion is  not  available,  it  is  always  easy  and  interest- 
ing to  get  drunk.  This  cause  is  active  in  country 
places  more  than  in  the  city.  Prohibiting  drink, 
in  these  situations,  only  adds  to  the  zest  of  the 
drink  the  zest  of  the  chase. 

IV. — Troubles,  anxieties,  losses,  afflictions. — 
Men  seek  escape  from  them  in  drink.  This  is  a 
prolific  source  of  intemperance. 

V. — Malnutrition. — Men  and  women  poorly 
nourished  find  a  false  strength  in  alcohol, 

VI. — To  physiological  deficiencies. — Nature  has 
formed  some  people  perverse,  abnormal,  awry. 
Almost  anything  may  be  expected  of  them,  except 
what  is  reasonable.  If  it  is  not  intemperance,  it 
is  something  else.  These  people  do  not  go  wrong, 
because  they  get  drunk.  They  get  drunk,  because 
they  are  wrong,  to  start  with. 

Now  the  nature  of  the  appropriate  cure  in  each 
item  of  the  above  analysis  is  clear;  for  idleness, 


226  THE  CHURCH 

work;  for  overwork,  rest;  for  tedium,  varied  and 
healthful  interests ;  for  malnutrition,  a  sufficiency 
of  good  food ;  for  abnormality,  a  toning-up  of  the 
whole  community,  physically  and  morally,  and  a 
supervision  of  the  unfit. 

Ill 

Now  in  all  these  directions  the  Church  can  do 
something;  but  in  none,  everything.  The  condi- 
tions ramify  widely  and  penetrate  deeply.  They 
involve  problems  of  capital  and  labor,  child  labor, 
woman's  labor,  factory  conditions,  tenement  house 
conditions,  food  prices  and  purity,  rents,  taxation ; 
and  many  others;  which  the  Church  was  neither 
empowered  nor  commissioned  to  judge  of  directly 
and  concretely.  The  church  is  out  of  its  element, 
when  it  sets  up  as  political  economist,  and  pre- 
sumes to  decide  among  conflicting  policies ;  for,  in 
these  things,  it  knoweth  ''not  which  shall  prosper, 
whether  this  or  that,  or  whether  they  both  shall 
be  alike  good"  (Ecc.  11.6) ;  or  alike  bad.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  degree  as  the  church  attends  to  its 
spiritual  task  successfully,  will  the  spirit  of  justice 
and  charity  permeate  and  shape  legislation  and 
industry,  as  a  living  and  potent  principle.  This 
"pure"  religion,  indeed,  has  had  its  share  in  re- 
ducing intemperance,  through  the  general  im- 
provement in  manners  and  morals  to  which  it  has 
contributed  in  the  last  hundred  and  fifty  years. 
Profanity,  for  example,  is  less  common  than  it 
was.  So  is  smutty  language.  Society,  too,  is  more 
sensitive  to  cruelty  and  injustice  practised  on  its 
weaker  members. 


INTEMPERANCE  227 

Bnt  even  more  potent  than  religion,  for  temper- 
ance, are  the  natural  forces  in  modern  society  that 
are  constantly,  like  an  acid,  eating  into  and  dis- 
integrating the  basal  causes.  Far  the  greatest  of 
these  forces  is  business.  A  hundred  years  ago 
a  man  would  take  the  stage  from  New  York  to 
Philadelphia.  If  the  driver  was  tipsy,  it  did  not 
make  so  much  difference:  some  passenger  could 
handle  the  lines  as  well  as  he.  At  worst,  an  up- 
set meant  only  some  bruises,  and  a  few  dollars' 
damage, — possibly  a  horse  broke  its  leg. 

Today  that  stage-driver  is  a  locomotive  en- 
gineer. On  his  efficiency  depend  hundreds  of  lives, 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  of  property,  and 
perhaps  a  million  dollars  in  damage  suits.  So- 
briety in  that  engineer  is  indispensable. 

Again,  industry  is  inter-related  today.  The  old- 
time  shoemaker  might  get  drunk :  only  a  customer 
was  incommoded.  Today,  in  the  factory,  if  work- 
man No.  1  is  away  drunk,  no  product  is  handed 
over  to  workman  No.  2 ;  No.  2  hands  none  over  to 
No.  3 ;  nor  No.  49  to  No.  50.  If  one  cog  is  wrong, 
the  whole  machine  stops.  This  means  serious 
loss ;  and  No.  1  positively  must  not  get  drunk. 

Competition  is  keen.  Mind  and  body  must  be 
kept  at  their  best.  There  is  no  place  in  business 
for  the  intemperate.    He  is  unfit.    He  must  go. 

Third ;  organized  labor  has  powerfully  promoted 
temperance. 

By  reducing  excessive  toil,  it  has  reduced  the 
abnormal  demand  for  stimulants.  By  raising 
wages,  it  has  provided  better  food,  clothes,  homes, 
not  only  for  its  members,  but  for  the  whole  labor- 


228  THE  CHURCH 

ing  class.  Less  work  and  more  money,  too,  open 
out  wholesome  ambitions  and  prospects.  By  ex- 
cluding children  of  tender  years  from  industrial 
drudgery,  it  enables  their  minds  to  be  educated 
and  their  bodies  to  grow ;  so  that,  when  men  and 
women,  they  are  sound  and  fit.  By  sick  and  death 
benefits,  by  old  age  and  out-of-work  relief,  whether 
from  union  or  employer,  fear  for  what  will  hap- 
pen, when  they  are  incapacitated,  is  removed. 
Now  ''fear  hath  torment";  which  tends  to  ex- 
cess in  drink. 

The  struggle  with  their  powerful  foe  teaches 
self-restraint.  Success  teaches  self-respect.  Both 
promote  class  pride.  And  all  three  make  for  tem- 
perance. 

Thus  both  halves  of  industrial  society,  labor  and 
capital,  have  a  powerful  interest  in  temperance. 
Is  it  any  wonder  that  it  has  made  headway? 

Again;  the  commercializing  of  society,  with 
much  bad,  has  some  good.  Rich  men  who  for- 
merly wasted  their  lives  in  sport  or  vice  are  now 
expected  to  work ;  and,  with  exceptions,  they  do.  In 
consequence,  they  keep  temperate. 

IV 

Now  in  all  these  secular  motives  the  church  has 
not  much  place.  Nevertheless  the  resulting  situ- 
ation concerns  her,  for  it  offers  a  danger  and  an 
opportunity.  Here  is  the  danger :  this  prudential 
temperance,  being  a  simulacrum  of  the  church's 
and  the  Gospel's,  may  be  accepted  in  place  of  it, 
and  thus  the  church  be  drawn  off  her  own  field 
to  the  world's,  by  the  lure  of  quick  and  easy  re- 


INTEMPERANCE  229 

turns.  Then  the  church  turns  physician,  chemist, 
politician,  political  economist,  agitator,  office- 
seeker.  Read,  for  example,  the  following  pas- 
sages from  a  sermon,  preached  by  a  Christian 
minister,  in  a  Christian  pulpit,  on  the  Christian 
holy  day,  in  an  historic  New  England  church, — a 
sermon  whose  wide  circulation  shows  a  wide 
approval. 

''Science  has  demonstrated  that  alcohol  is  al- 
ways and  only  a  poison.  Great  physicians  pro- 
claim it  the  'race-poison'.  It  is  necessary  to 
enlarge  on  this  point  a  little.  Many  persons  think 
that  a  moderate  use  of  alcohol  liquor  is  healthful, 
or  at  least  not  injurious.  I  have  thought  so  for 
years.  I  have  been  compelled  to  change  my  view 
on  that  point.  A  moderate  quantity  of  alcohol  in 
a  healthy  organism  acts  as  a  poison  and  is  in- 
jurious.   Such  is  the  testimony  of  science. 

"Let  me  give  you  some  of  the  ways  in  which 
this  is  proved.  There  is  the  experiment  of  time- 
reaction.  I  am  asked,  let  us  say,  when  I  see  a 
flash  of  light,  to  put  out  my  hand  toward  it.  Be- 
tween seeing  the  flash  and  putting  out  my  hand 
an  interval  of  time  necessarily  elapses.  That  in- 
terval is  called  time-reaction.  It  has  been  proved 
that  a  very  moderate  quantity  of  alcohol  affects 
this  time-reaction  unfavorably,  slows  down  the 
nervous  action,  retards  the  response  the  nerves 
make  to  the  demand  for  movement.  Thus  a 
duelist  or  fencer  who  had  taken  a  glass  of  port 
wine  would  be  slower  in  offense  and  defense,  would 
be  seriously  handicapped.  It  is  the  nature  of  al- 
cohol to  paralyze  the  motor  nerve  centers.    This 


230  THE  CHURCH 

has  been  proved  beyond  all  doubt  by  strictest  ex- 
periments in  psychological  laboratories. 

"It  has  been  demonstrated  by  experiment  that  if 
a  clerk  takes  a  moderate  amount  of  beer  or  wine, 
he  cannot  add  figures  as  quickly  or  accurately  the 
next  day.  It  has  been  demonstrated  by  experi- 
ments in  the  armies  of  the  world  that  a  soldier 
cannot  shoot  as  accurately  after  he  has  taken  a 
moderate  amount  of  drink.  These  rigorous  tests 
led  President  Eliot  of  Harvard  recently  in  a 
speech  before  the  Massachusetts  No-License 
league  to  assert  that  the  'habitual  use  of  alcohol 
even  in  moderate  quantities  is  inexpedient  because 
it  lowers  the  nervous  and  intellectual  power  of  the 
human  being'. 

"And  now  let  me  try  to  state  what  a  body  of 
scientific  experimenters,  among  whom  Metclmi- 
koff,  'the  chief  ornament  of  the  Pasteur  institute 
at  Paris',  may  be  cited  as  most  eminent,  have  dem- 
onstrated about  certain  physiological  effects  of 
alcoholic  liquor. 

"In  every  drop  of  our  blood  there  are  millions 
of  red  cells  and  thousands  of  white  cells.  These 
white  cells  are  soldiers.  When  the  bacilli  of  dis- 
ease invade  the  body  the  white  cells  attack  them, 
enfold  them,  and  devour  them.  Hence  Professor 
Metchnikoff  calls  them  phagocytes,  or  eating-cells. 
Our  health  and  strength,  our  power  to  resist  and 
throw  off  disease,  depends  on  keeping  these  white 
cells  normal.  Now  what  is  the  effect  of  alcohol  on 
the  white  cells?  It  paralyzes  them.  The  army  of 
defense  becomes  literally  drunk.  This  is  why 
drinking  men  almost  always   succumb  to  pneu- 


INTEMPERANCE  231 

monia.  This,  too,  is  the  reason  why  physicians  no 
longer  use  alcohol  in  pneumonia.  Nobody  can  ever 
tell  the  hosts  that  have  died  through  the  ignorant 
administration  of  alcoholic  liquors  in  fevers. 

' '  Not  less  interesting  is  the  effect  of  alcohol  on 
the  red  cells  of  the  blood.  What  makes  them  red 
is  a  chemical  compound  called  haemoglobin.  Its 
business  is  to  pick  up  the  oxygen  in  the  lungs  and 
distribute  it  to  every  living  cell  in  the  body.  The 
union  between  oxygen  and  haemoglobin  in  its  nor- 
mal state  is  very  loose;  in  its  alcoholized  state, 
very ' '  tight ' '.  Alcohol  glues  them  together  so  that 
the  red  cells  of  the  blood  stream  can  no  longer  de- 
liver their  oxygen.  Consequently  combustion  par- 
tially ceases  in  the  body.  A  drunken  man  is 
mortally  cold.  A  beer  drinker  grows  obese  because 
the  tissue  which  ought  to  be  burned  up  is  not 
burned  up.  Normal  heat  being  absent  exposes  the 
body  to  disease.  Waste  accumulates.  The  liver 
gives  out,  the  kidneys  give  out,  the  stomach  gives 
out.  It  has  been  said  that  beer  having  so  little 
alcohol  is  harmless.  Beer  has  10  per  cent  of  alco- 
hol. An  accomplished  beer  drinker  will  consume 
one  gallon  of  alcohol  in  beer  in  twenty-four  hours. 

"It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  if  a  novice  takes 
a  little  alcohol  it  goes  at  once  to  his  head.  What 
does  that  mean?  The  highest  stratum  of  con- 
sciousness is  the  faculty  of  judgment  and  self- 
control.  The  psychologists  speak  of  the  nerve 
centers  of  inhibition — inhibition  meaning  self- 
control.  Alcohol  has  this  characteristic  action  on 
these  nerve  centers — it  paralyzes  them". 

This  preacher  uses  the  pulpit  and  the  Lord's  day 


232  THE  CHURCH 

to  teach  just  how  alcohol  acts  on  the  human  sys- 
tem. He  correlates  these  various  actions  with  one 
another;  and,  applying  them  to  the  several  situa- 
tions and  the  varying  needs  of  the  human  body, 
he  deduces  that  alcohol  as  a  beverage  is  always 
hurtful,  and  only  hurtful. 

This  is  a  verdict  of  such  commanding  impor- 
tance that,  if  announced  by  even  the  greatest  med- 
ical authority  in  the  world,  we  should  still  feel  it 
our  duty  to  check  it  up,  if  possible,  by  other  author- 
ities in  this  field;  much  more  so,  then,  when  we 
have  only  the  word  of  a  clergyman  for  it.  We  lay- 
men in  this  field  naturally  turn  first  to  the  Ency- 
clopaedia Britannica.  The  article  Temperance,  in 
the  11th  edition,  is  by  Arthur  Shadwell,  M.A., 
M.D.,  LL.D.,  Member  of  the  Council  of  the  Epi- 
demiological Society;  author  of  ''The  London 
Water  Supply";  of  "Industrial  Efficiency";  of 
''Drink,  Temperance,  and  Legislation"; — a  man 
of  science  indeed;  who  has  spent  years  in  the 
study  of  the  drink  question.  And  this  is  what  Dr. 
Shadwell  says,  toward  the  close  of  his  Encyclo- 
paedia article. — 

"The  existence  of  a  broad  relation  between  su- 
perior vigor  and  an  inclination  for  alcoholic  drinks 
was  pointed  out  years  ago  by  the  writer ;  drinking 
peoples  are  noticeably  more  energetic  and  progres- 
sive than  non-drinking  ones.  It  is  the  universal 
experience  of  ship-masters  that  British  seamen, 
whose  intemperance  causes  trouble  and  therefore 
induces  a  preference  for  more  sober  foreigners, 
exhibit  an  energy  and  endurance  in  emergency  of 
which  the  latter  are  incapable.    Similar  testimony 


INTEMPERANCE  233 

has  repeatedly  been  borne  by  engineers  and  con- 
tractors engaged  in  large  works  in  the  South  of 
Europe.  .  .  .  It  is  legitimate  and  desirable  to 
emphasize  the  evils,  but  not  by  the  one-sided  and 
fallacious  handling  of  facts.  Alcoholic  excess 
produces  the  evils  alleged,  though  not  to  the  ex- 
tent alleged,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that 
its  moderate  use  produces  any  of  them.  . 
To  draw  the  inference  that  alcoholic  liquors  taken 
in  moderation  and  consumed  in  the  body  have  any 
such  action  [as  in  the  tissue  of  a  toper]  is  wholly 
fallacious.  In  point  of  fact,  we  know  that  they 
have  not.  But  there  is  more  than  that.  These 
experiments  only  take  cognizance  of  alcohol ;  they 
ignore  the  other  substances  actually  consumed 
along  with  it.  Some  of  these,  and  notably  sugar, 
are  recognized  foods;  the  balance  of  opinion  on 
the  vexed  question  whether  alcohol  itself  is  a  food 
is  now  on  the  side  of  alcohol.  But  in  addition  to 
the  principal  constituents,  easily  separable  by 
analysis,  are  many  other  substances  of  which 
science  takes  no  cognizance  at  all;  they  are  not 
identified.  Many  may  be  in  minute  quantities,  yet 
extremely  powerful,  as  are  many  other  vegetable 
extractives.  We  know  that  they  exist  by  their 
taste  and  effect,  .  .  .  vastly  important  to  the 
human  organism.  Another  group  of  experiments 
are  equally  fallacious  in  a  different  way.  The 
effect  of  alcohol  in  mental  operations  is  tested  by 
the  comparative  speed  and  ease  with  which  work 
is  done  after  a  dose  and  without  it.  The  effect 
has  been  found  to  be  diminished  speed  and  ease; 
but  those  experimenters  do  not  apply  the  same 


234  THE  CHURCH 

test  to  a  good  meal  or  a  sound  sleep  or  hard  exer- 
cise. The  writer  finds  in  concentrated  mental 
work  that  the  immediate  effect  of  even  a  small 
dose  of  alcohol  is  to  impair  efficiency;  but  the 
other  three  do  so  in  a  much  higher  degree.  The 
inference  is  not  that  those  are  injurious,  but  that 
the  proper  time  for  each  is  not  just  before  work ; 
after  work  he  finds  them  all,  alcohol  included,  ben- 
eficial. [Eecall  Clement  of  Alexandria's  recom- 
mendation of  drink  'towards  evening,  when  we 
are  no  longer  engaged  in  serious  work'.]  The 
mortality  statistics  are  treated  in  a  similar  one- 
sided way.  They  clearly  show  the  injury  done  by 
the  abuse  of  alcohol,  but  what  of  its  moderate  use? 
Agricultural  laborers  are  the  most  typical  modern 
drinking  class,  and  they  are  one  of  the  healthiest, 
in  spite  of  exposure,  bad  housing,  and  poverty.  If 
all  the  unhealthiness  of  those  who  drink  hard  is 
referred  to  their  drink,  then  the  healthiness  of 
those  who  drink  moderately  should  be  referred  to 
it  too. 

"The  absolute  condemnation  of  alcoholic  drinks 
has  never  been  endorsed  by  public  opinion  or  by 
the  medical  profession,  because  it  is  contradicted 
by  the  general  experience.  ...  It  is  equally 
undeniable  that  many  derive  benefit  from  a  mod- 
erate amount  of  alcoholic  drink.  Sir  William 
Paget,  than  whom  no  man  was  more  completely 
master  of  his  appetites  or  better  qualified  to  judge, 
drank  port  wine  himself  because  he  found  that  it 
did  him  good.  He  represents  the  attitude  of  the 
medical  j)rofession  as  a  whole  and  of  temperate 
men  in  general". 


INTEMPERANCE  295 

So  much  for  tlie  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  on 
drink.  Now  just  a  word  as  to  what  this  clergy- 
man says  of  the  amount  of  alcohol  in  beer, — to-wit : 
"Beer  has  10  per  cent  of  alcohol.  An  accomplished 
beer-drinker  will  consume  one  gallon  of  alcohol  in 
beer  in  twenty-four  hours". 

But  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  11th  Edition, 
says, — article  ''Beer", — ''The  general  run  of 
beers  contain  from  3%  to  6%  of  alcohol".  But 
this  is  of  British  beers.  It  presents  an  analytical 
table  of  American  beers,  which  shows  a  materially 
lower  alcoholic  content,  falling  as  low,  indeed,  as 
2.68  per  cent.  At  this  rate,  our  "accomplished 
beer  drinker",  to  maintain  his  record  of  "one  gal- 
lon of  alcohol  in  twenty- four  hours",  would  have 
to  drink  about  40  gallons  of  beer,  say  a  barrel  a 
day! 

Had  not  the  cobbler  better  stick  to  his  last? 

V 

There,  then,  is  the  danger  to  the  church  in  the 
advance  of  prudential  temperance, — that  it  will 
set  up  as  an  authority  in  things  prudential.  But 
the  situation  offers  its  opportunity  too.  Whatever 
the  progress  of  temperance  through  prudential 
forces,  much  remains  to  be  done ;  for  there  is  still 
a  great,  though  diminishing,  deal  of  intemperance. 
Here  is  where  the  church  can  teach  men  the  sym- 
pathy of  Christ  with  all  the  normal  appetites,  as 
against  excess  and  rigorism  alike.  In  fact,  the 
church  itself  is  none  the  worse  for  this  reminder; 
for  it,  as  well  as  the  world,  is  apt  to  forget  that 
the  whole  man,  with  all  his  homely,  daily,  fleshly 


236  THE  CHURCH 

experiences,  is  ''holy  unto  the  Lord";  or  should 
be.  At  the  same  time,  it  can  advise  and  warn 
that,  for  some,  the  total  denial  of  some  of  these 
cravings  is  best. 

The  Catholic  Total  Abstinence  societies  in  this 
country  are  admirable  examples  of  what  the 
church  should  do,  and  where  it  should  stop,  in  this 
matter  of  intemperance.  These  societies  urge  all 
to  take  the  pledge  who  feel  that  it  would  be  to 
their  spiritual  or  physical  advantage ;  but  there  is 
no  censure  of  those  who  view  their  duty  otherwise. 
In  fact,  many  of  these  societies  admit  temperate 
drinkers  to  associate  membership.  I  have  seen 
a  parish  gathering  in  the  C.  T.  A.  hall,  where,  at 
the  close,  refreshments  were  served;  the  same 
trays  carried  ''soft"  drinks  and  beer;  each  helped 
himself, — the  members  of  the  society  to  their  soft 
drinks;  others,  as  they  preferred; — each  employ- 
ing the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  had  made  him 
free  in  the  way  his  conscience  and  judgment  dic- 
tated ;  and  each  recognizing  an  equal  liberty  in  the 
others; — as  admirable  an  exemplification  of  right 
reason,  Christian  principle,  and  true  temperance 
as  I  have  ever  seen. 

A  feature  of  the  Catholic  Total  Abstinence  So- 
ciety, equally  beautiful  and  effective,  is  its  bring- 
ing total  abstinence,  for  those  who  choose  it,  under 
the  Christian  motive.  The  pledge  begins:  "I 
promise,  with  the  divine  assistance,  and  in  honor 
of  the  Sacred  Thirst  and  Agony  of  our  Savior", 
etc. 

Besides  these  C.  T.  A.  Societies,  the  priests  ad- 
minister a  pledge  to  those  who  abuse  alcoholic 


INTEMPERANCE  237 

beverages  to  abstain  from  such  beverages  for  a 
period  of  three  months,  six  months,  a  year,  or 
five  years.  Sometimes  they  administer  a  pledge 
not  to  drink  in  saloons  or  public  places,  but  to 
confine  themselves  to  "a  pint  of  beer"  at  meals 
or  before  retiring. 

Let  me  cite  here  another  association  having 
the  same  motive,  to  abolish  the  evils  connected 
with  drink,  and,  like  it,  relying  for  this  on  the  plain 
old-time  principles  and  precepts  of  the  old-time 
Bible  and  Church.  It  is  known  as  "The  True 
Temperance  Association",  with  headquarters  in 
London.  It  is  undenominational,  and  among  its 
members  are  many  very  eminent  men,  clerical  and 
lay;  such  as  the  Right  Hon.  Alfred  Lyttleton,  Sir 
Charles  Wyndham,  Archdeacon  Bevan,  Arch- 
deacon Sinclair,  Canon  Knox  Little,  Canon 
Hensley  Henson,  G.  K.  Chesterton,  Archdeacon 
Oldham. 

Note  this  among  the  aims  of  the  Association : 
"To  encourage  the  development  of  the  public 
house  in  the  direction  of  making  it,  in  the  best 
sense,  a  place  for  the  present-day  social  needs  of 
the  people,  and  to  help  in  the  removal  of  all  leg- 
islative  and   administrative   hindrances   to    such 
developments ' '. 
It  makes,  also,  this  striking  declaration: 
"In  the  forefront  of  its  program     ...     in 
the  effort  to  get  rid  of  intemperance  the  publican 
[saloon-keeper]  must  not  be  treated  as  an  enemy, 
but  as  a  valuable  ally.    .     .     .    If  we  frankly  take 
him  into  our  counsels  and  ask  his  help,  instead  of 
treating  him  as  a  pariah  and  a  public  nuisance,  the 


238  THE  CHURCH 

work  of  temperance  reform  will  be  vastly  aided". 

''A  public  house  should  be  a  place  for  the  pro- 
vision of  meals,  if  desired,  and  also  for  social 
amusement.  ...  If  amusements  were  plenti- 
ful, there  would  be  less  excessive  drinking.  .  .  . 
The  public  house  should  develop  into  a  real  pub- 
lic house,  a  place  of  social  usefulness  and  innocent 
pleasure,  wherein,  because  of  its  useful  and  pleas- 
ant features,  intemperance  in  drink  would  be  most 
effectively  discountenanced.     . 

''The  True  Temperance  Association  hopes  that 
before  long  there  will  be  scarce  a  public  house  in 
the  country  from  which  music  will  be  absent,  and 
it  hopes  to  see  the  owners  of  licensed  houses  vying 
with  each  other  in  the  provision,  not  merely  of 
gramophones  and  automatic  pianos,  but  of  the 
best  available  music, — an  entertainment  which  will 
have  the  refreshing  and  elevating  influence  upon 
listeners  which  good  music  always  exercises". 

Here  are  some  passages  from  a  sermon  circu- 
lated by  this  Association, — a  sermon  preached  by 
the  Eev.  Forbes  Phillips,  vicar  of  Gorleston  Parish 
Church:  "The  public  house  is  a  need.  It  is  an 
effect  rather  than  a  cause.  It  was  never  meant  to 
be  merely  a  drinking-place,  but  a  real  house  of 
refreshment,  clean,  bright,  sanitary,  cheerful ;  cer- 
tainly not  a  place  to  be  regarded  with  suspicion 
and  as  the  target  of  abuse.  Religion  must  not  be 
degraded  to  call  God's  good  gifts  the  ''Devil  in 
solution".  ...  A  gross  libel  is  uttered  upon 
the  Founder  of  our  Faith  when  such  things  are 
said.  .  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone  said,  'How  can  I 
who  drink  good  wine  and  bitter  beer  every  day  of 


INTEMPERANCE  239 

my  life,  in  a  comfortable  room  and  among  friends, 
coolly  stand  up  and  advise  hard-working  fellow- 
creatures  to  take  the  pledge?'  " 

From  another  sermon, — by  the  Rev.  H.  R. 
Gamble,  Rector  of  Holy  Trinity  Church,  Sloane 
St.,  S.  W.,  London, — also  circulated  by  the  Asso- 
ciation,— I  extract : 

"Those  who  want  a  religion  which  forbids  the 
use  of  wine  and  all  alcoholic  liquors  can  have  it ; 
but  the  religion  is  not  Christianity.  It  is  Moham- 
medanism. .  .  .  But  suppose  that  in  some 
way  all  the  strong  drink  in  the  country  were  de- 
stroyed, it  does  not,  in  the  least,  follow  that, 
from  a  Christian  standpoint,  there  would 
be  any  gain.  No  mere  negative  reform  is 
of  much  moral  value.  Our  Lord  once  warned 
us  of  the  peril  of 'the  empty  house'.  .  .  .  I  do 
not  believe  it  would  be  desirable  to  make  this  a 
nation  of  teetotalers,  if  we  could.  The  desire'  for 
drink  is  an  instinct  to  be  guided,  not  extinguished. 

''The  aim  of  Christianity  is  not  to  work  more 
from  without,  but  from  within, — not  to  cultivate 
temperance  or  purity  as  isolated  virtues,  but  to 
produce  men  to  whom  purity  or  temperance  will 
be  a  necessary  part  of  the  Christian  life.  . 
It  strives  to  give  them  'a  clean  heart'  and  'a  right 
spirit',  believing  that  when  this  is  done  all  else 
will  follow  in  due  time.  .  .  .  Christianity  aims 
at  producing  character,  and  character  is  the  ex- 
pression of  the  whole  man.  The  danger  of  cul- 
tivating any  particular  virtue,  such  as  temperance, 
by  itself  is  that,  when  this  aim  is  accomplished, 
other  Darts  of  the  man's  nature  mav  be  left  en- 


240  THE  CHURCH 

tirely  unchanged.  The  most  common  example  of 
this  danger,  perhaps,  is  seen  in  the  violent  and 
aggressive  teetotaler,  who  often  seems  to  have 
attained  his  particular  object  at  the  cost  of  his 
character  as  a  whole.  He  is  often  lop-sided  and 
unbalanced.  .  .  .  Even  temperance  is  dearly 
bought  at  the  cost  of  character  as  a  whole.  .  .  . 
We  must  trust  men  and  women  as  free  and  re- 
sponsible beings,  capable  of  'self-reverence,  self- 
knowledge,  self-control'." 

The  President,  the  Right  Hon.  the  Earl  of  Hals- 
bury,  declared,  "The  public  house  ought  to  be  a 
place  where  a  man  can  go  with  his  wife".  He 
quoted  a  letter  from  Lord  Roberts,  commander  of 
the  army,  who  told  how  much  had  been  accom- 
plished for  true  temperance  in  the  Indian  army  by 
the  canteen.  Sir  Alfred  Cripps  quoted  the  Bishop 
of  Birmingham  as  recommending  to  his  country- 
men the  sort  of  public  cafe  that  he  had  lately 
observed  in  Spain. 

The  Association  "believes  that,  for  the  mass  of 
mankind,  sound  alcoholic  beverages,  drunk  in  mod- 
eration, are  not  only  harmless,  but  positively 
beneficial". 

Canon  Hensley  Henson  said :  * '  There  is  no  evi- 
dence available  in  the  history  of  mankind  to  jus- 
tify us  in  believing  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
temperate,  the  subarctic,  and  the  arctic  zones  are 
ever  likely  to  be  able  to  conduct  their  ordinary 
life  on  the  basis  of  total  abstinence.  .  .  .  Drink 
will  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  be  one  of  the 
fixed  elements  of  the  social  order  in  these  lati- 
tudes.   .     .     .    There  is  real  danger  of  associating 


INTEMPERANCE  241 

Christianity  and  total  abstinence  so  closely  as  to 
throw  into  revolt  against  Christianity  that  large 
volume  of  reason  and  of  custom  in  our  countrymen 
which  repudiates  the  habits  and  policy  of  total 
abstinence,  .  .  .  total  abstinence  putting  a 
burden  on  the  necks  of  our  countrymen  which 
neither  we  nor  our  forefathers  were  able  to  bear". 

Professor  W.  E.  Dixon,  M.D.,  of  Cambridge 
University,  stated  that  his  whole  life  had  been 
spent  in  the  investigation  of  the  action  of  drugs 
and  poisons,  and  that  his  laboratory  had  already 
published  many  researches  on  alcohol.  Dr.  Dixon 
asserted  that  all  reliable  evidence  indicates  that 
alcohol  is  not  a  poison;  '4n  moderation  it  is  a 
food,  because  it  yields  the  body  useful  energy". 

Archdeacon  Sinclair  gave  it  as  his  judgment 
that  militant  teetotalers  had  merely  taken  up  an 
ancient  heresy. 

The  Rev.  A.  E.  Oldroyd  not  only  believed  that 
it  was  right  and  Christian  to  drink,  but  hoped  the 
time  would  come  when  he  could  enter  a  public 
house  in  his  parish  without  criticism. 

The  Bishop  of  Chester  wrote  in  ''Chamber's 
Journal",  of  December,  1909:  "to  reform  the 
public  house  [saloon]  is  a  sounder  and  more  hope- 
ful aim  than  the  policy  of  prohibition  or  even  mere 
reduction". 

The  Bishop  of  Worcester  said,  in  addressing  his 
Clergy,  in  September,  1909 :  ' '  What  was  wanted 
was  not  so  much  the  destruction  of  public  houses 
as  their  reform.  .  .  .  What  the  nation  wanted 
was  a  more  frank  recognition  that  some  kind  of 
public   house    [saloon]    is   a  national   necessity. 


242  THE  CHURCH 

.  .  .  They  would  be  helped  to  accomplish  that 
more  truly  by  sympathetic  than  by  vindictive  leg- 
islation". 


SUMMARY 


At  this  point,  the  teaching  of  Bible  and  Church 
about  drink  having  been  reviewed,  two  observa- 
tions are  in  order. 

First ;  while  at  times  drink  is  spoken  of  as  food, 
still  the  prevailing  view  in  Bible  and  Church  is 
that  its  function  is  to  relax  and  cheer :  it  "  maketh 
glad  the  heart  of  man".  This  relaxing  of  the  bod- 
ily and  mental  forces  is  as  normal  and  wholesome 
as  their  concentration  and  tension.  It  is  so  much 
the  better,  if  this  relaxing  can  be,  not  merely  an 
automatic  reaction,  but  a  cheerful  recreation. 

Second;  our  religion  undoubtedly  posits  the 
healthfulness  of  drink,  rightly  used.  If  science 
should  demonstrate  the  contrary,  namely,  that  the 
alcoholic  beverage  is  a  poison,  it  would  be  a  fatal 
blow  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  Jesus 
practised  an  indulgence,  however  ignorantly,  that 
was  injurious, — that  was  destructive, — to  body 
and  soul,  if  he  encouraged  this  indulgence  in 
others,  if  he,  indeed,  incorporated  it  in  the  holiest 
rite  of  his  church  and  religion,  to  be  learned  and 
practised  by  every  disciple  of  his  throughout  all 
the  world,  till  the  end  of  time,  then  our  confidence 
in  him  as  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life  is 
hopelessly  shattered.  Then,  in  this  thing,  his 
Way  is  the  broad  way  that  leadeth  unto 
destruction;  his  Truth  makes  men,  not  free, 
but    slaves   indeed;   his   Life   is   not   the   light, 


INTEMPERANCE  243 

but  the  darkness,  of  men.  St.  John  (2.25) 
assures  us  that  Jesus  "needed  not  that  any- 
one should  bear  witness  concerning  man;  for 
he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man".  But,  if  the 
teetotaler  is  right,  then  in  this  knowledge  Jesus 
needeth  that  Buddha,  that  Mohammed,  should  tell 
him :  for  in  this  they  knew,  and  he  did  not.  The 
evil  that  through  this  his  ignorance  he  sanctioned 
and  sanctified  through  all  these  ages  is  immeasur- 
able, appalling.  The  conversion  of  Buddhists  and 
Mohammedans  has  meant,  in  this  direction,  their 
turning  from  light  unto  darkness ;  for  the  Church, 
following  Christ,  taught  them  that  the  aversion 
to  drink  was  a  mere  superstition,  and  put  the 
wine-cup  to  their  lips  as  a  thing  "generally  nec- 
essary to  salvation".  No!  A  Savior  whose  ig- 
norance and  blundering  have  to  be  corrected  by 
his  own  disciples  will  never  do. 

And,  if  Christ  was  mistaken  in  this,  why  not 
in  what  else  he  taught? 

Yet  no  disciple  of  his  need  be  shaken.  It  is  not 
the  first  time  that  Christ  has  been  wounded  in  the 
house  of  his  friends, — not  the  first  time  nor  the 
fiftieth ; — not  the  first  nor  the  fiftieth,  either,  that 
he  has  suffered  despite  in  the  name  of  "science 
falsely  so  called"  (1  Tim.  6.20).  And,  as  in  the 
XJast,  so  it  is  now:  real  science,  the  science  that  is 
science  indeed,  the  science  of  such  men  as  Dr. 
Arthur  Shadwell  and  Prof.  W.  E.  Dixon,  is  vindi- 
cating and  authenticating  (and  all  the  more 
effectively,  because  unintended)  him  who  is,  not 
only  the  Power,  but  also  the  Wisdom,  of  God 
(1  Cor.  1.24). 


PART  THREE 

THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 


CHAPTER  I 

RELIGION   AND   LAW 


It  seems  like  a  truism  to  say  that,  for  religion, 
this  question  of  drink  is  a  religious  question:  yet 
it  needs  to  be  said.  Those  who,  by  their  office, 
peculiarly  represent  religion  should,  as  such,  con- 
fine themselves  to  this  one  interest:  Have  Bible 
and  Church  a  message  for  this  specific  thing;  if 
so,  what  is  it?  This  is  not  to  slur  the  other  as- 
pects of  the  question :  possibly  they  are  even  more 
vital  and  determinative.  But  they  are  for  other 
departments  and  for  other  men,  not  for  religion 
and  its  officers.  We  clergy  resent  it,  when  men  of 
science  attempt  to  lay  down  the  law  in  matters 
religious,  especially  in  controverted  matters.  It 
is  just  as  wrong  for  the  clergy  to  pronounce  on 
controverted  matters  of  science.  We  have  seen 
what  a  sorry  thing  pulpit  ' '  science ' '  is,  discredit- 
ing not  only  the  man  and  the  calling,  but  Church 
and  Religion  as  well.  The  whole  misunderstand- 
ing between  science  and  religion,  in  fact,  has  been 
due  to  this  meddling  of  each  in  the  things  of  the 
other.  Science  has  its  sphere;  religion  has  its 
sphere;  occasionally  the  borders  between  the  two 

244 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  245 

have  to  be  rectified ;  each  should  respect  the  rights 
of  the  other  by  minding  its  own  business. 

I  am  far  from  denying,  too,  that  law  has  its 
place  in  the  correction  of  wrong  and  the  promo- 
tion of  right.  But  it  is  not  for  the  church  and 
clergy  to  say  what  the  law  should  be.  Surely  the 
times  past  sufficed  for  that.  In  these  happier  days 
religion  may  attend  to  its  proper  office  of  speaking 
to  man's  conscience  and  educating  his  soul.  It 
should  tell  him  what  duty  is,  not  what  the  law 
should  be.  The  one  it  knows  infallibly ;  the  other 
perhaps  nobody  knows.  When  religion  abandons 
its  high  function,  and  enters  politics  to  advocate 
or  oppose  a  bill,  a  political  measure, — that  is,  a 
question  of  facts,  expediency,  precedent,  judgment 
(as  to  all  which  religion  has  no  special  enlighten- 
ment),— it  forfeits  its  authority  as  the  organ  of  the 
common  conscience,  and  becomes  a  mere  political 
partisan ;  whose  inevitable  next  step  will  be  to  pull 
wires,  and  make  deals  and  intrigues, — in  a  word, 
to  show  itself  sharper  than  its  opponents.  But  it 
is  not  good  for  the  church  to  be  sharp.  It  should 
be  wise  and  simple. 

It  is  in  this  matter  of  law  that  the  church  is 
prone  to  go  wrong.  It  did  indeed  once  set  up  as 
authority  on  science,  also,  but  it  has  learned  its 
lesson,  and  does  so  no  more.  Every  one  now  rec- 
ognizes that  the  church  or  the  clergyman,  as  such, 
rendering  a  judgment  on  scientific  issues,  is  an 
absurdity.  But  it  is  not  so  widely  recognized  that 
the  church  has  no  more  competency  to  set  up  as 
legislator,  not  a  whit  more.  In  view  of  the  gen- 
eral misapprehension  on  this  subject,  it  will  be 


246     THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

worth  while  to  consider  the  offices  of  religion  and 
law  at  some  length. 

The  religion  that  I  have  in  mind,  in  what  fol- 
lows, is  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  much  that  I 
say  would  be  inapplicable  to  any  other. 

Here  is  the  difference  between  this  religion  and 
law. — Law  looks  over  the  man.  It  says,  "He  has 
murdered  nobody;  he  has  robbed  nobody;  he  has 
libelled  nobody.  I  find  no  fault  in  him".  But 
religion  does  not  look  over  him;  it  looks  within 
him,  and  says,  ' '  Murder  was  in  his  heart ;  he  is  a 
murderer.  Bobbery  was  in  his  heart ;  he  is  a  rob- 
ber. He  thought  the  slander;  therefore  he  com- 
mitted it.  He  looked  on  a  woman  to  lust  after 
her ;  therefore  he  hath  committed  adultery  already 
with  her". 

It  is  not  so  much  that  the  law  judges  by  ex- 
ternals ;  but  it  judges  of  externals.  It  knows  only 
what  the  man  does;  and  it  cares  for  what  he  is 
only  so  far  as  this  may  determine  what  he  will 
do.  The  deed's  the  thing.  But  with  religion  the 
thought's  the  thing,  and  the  deed  is  only  an  inci- 
dent of  it.  That  is,  a  man  may  do  things  that 
offend,  with  little,  or  even  no,  wrong  in  his  heart, 
— certainly  "^ath  none  commensurate  with  the  legal 
offence.  Again,  he  may  do  nothing  that  offends, 
and  yet  be,  morally,  a  monster.  The  law  only 
demands  that  the  sepulchre  be  whited:  it  objects 
to  conditions  within  only  so  far  as  they  tend  to 
work  through  and  loosen  or  blotch  the  whitening. 

Here,  then,  is  the  sole  concern  of  law  with  char- 
acter: it  needs  character,  to  secure  the  sort  of 
conduct  that  alone  it  can  work  with.     Another 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  247 

thing: — it  needs  this  character,  but  it  cannot 
evoke  it;  it  will  therefore  welcome  and  patronize 
any  agency  that  can. 

Now  this  thing  that  law  cannot  do  is  religion's 
specialty:  this  one  thing  it  does.  Yet,  even  so,  it 
does  not  do  it  in  the  way  that  law  would  do  it, 
if  it  could.  The  law  would  build  up  only  that 
inner  character  which  would  come  to  the  surface 
in  the  conduct  needed  at  the  time  for  social  well- 
being.  Character  that  did  not  come  to  the  sur- 
face, or  that  came  to  the  surface  in  ways  not  in 
demand  at  the  time,  or  even  obnoxious,  it  would 
not  concern  itself  with.  This  sort  of  character 
might  perish,  for  all  the  law  cared. 

Eeligion  may  do  what  law  does,  but  it  does  it 
only  in  doing  far  more.  Its  program  is  not  a 
well  ordered  society:  religion  would  perish,  if  it 
looked  only  on  the  things  that  are  seen  and 
temporal.  It  is  not  that  it  ignores  these :  they  do, 
in  fact,  enter  into  its  calculations.  But  it  esteems 
them  only  for  their  eternal  value,  the  values  that 
are  ''not  seen".  Here  is  the  antithesis:  law  says, 
"The  spirit  for  the  flesh;  eternity  for  time".  For 
the  law  cares  for  neither  spirit  nor  eternity  in 
themselves,  but  only  as  enfleshed  in  time,  only  as 
they  are  here  and  now.  But  religion,  contrari- 
wise, says,  ''The  flesh  for  the  spirit;  time  for 
eternity".  Religion,  therefore,  subordinating  the 
less  to  the  greater,  will  sacrifice  body  to  soul,  time 
to  eternity.  But  law,  knowing  nothing  greater, 
will  sacrifice  this  life  only  for  still  more  of  this 
life,  and  time  only  for  a  longer  time, — a  question 
of  mere  quantitative  advantage. 


248  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

Jesus  not  only  distinguished  these  two  interests, 
but  he  named  an  indication  by  which  any  one 
could  distinguish  them :  ' '  My  kingdom ' ',  he  said 
(John  18.36),  "is  not  of  this  world :  if  my  kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight". 
That  is,  force  is  the  mark  of  the  one  kingdom ;  the 
absence  of  force,  a  mark  of  the  other.  The  club, 
the  bayonet,  the  gallows,  the  cell  are  unknown  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  spirit.  Wherever  you  see  force 
used,  you  may  know  it  is  not  Christ's  kingdom.  It 
may  call  itself  his,  but  it  is  not;  for  his  servants 
do  not  fight.  This,  then,  is  a  distinction  of  religion 
and  law, — the  presence  or  absence  of  force. 
Law  is  not  law  without  it  ("Where  the  law  cannot 
compel  it  must  not  command"):  religion  is  not 
religion  with  it.  Wherever  you  see  force,  there  is 
no  religion.  Wherever  you  see  religion,  there  is 
no  force.  This  is  not  to  condemn  force:  it  is 
only  to  say  that  it  appertains  to  Caesar,  not 
Christ. 

But  the  absence  of  force  is  freedom.  Freedom, 
then,  is  a  condition  of  the  kingdom  of  God, — not 
the  kingdom  itself,  mark,  but  a  condition  of  it. 
In  that  kingdom  the  man  is  free.  In  the  kingdom 
of  this  world,  he  is  under  compulsion. 

Is  there,  then,  nothing  in  Christ's  kingdom  cor- 
responding with  fear  and  force  in  the  kingdom  of 
this  world  I  Indeed  there  is, — both  fear  and  force, 
— but  after  an  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner.  It 
is  fear  of  God,  not  man ;  for  the  soul,  not  the  body ; 
for  eternity,  not  time.  And  force?  "The  love  of 
Christ  constraineth  us"  (2  Cor.  5.14). 

Thus  these  two  kingdoms,  government  and  re^. 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  249 

ligion,  differ  in  their  fields,  their  ends,  their  in- 
struments. 

But  this  force  which  supports  law, — whose  force 
is  it?  Ultimately  it  is  the  force  that  those  who 
assent  to  the  law  can  bring  to  bear  on  those  who 
do  not.  And  the  effectiveness  of  this  force  varies 
with  the  difificulty  of  the  task.  Some  things  law 
can  do  easily ;  some  things,  with  effort ;  some,  with 
difficulty ;  some,  scarce  at  all ;  and  some  things  are 
so  far  beyond  it  that  it  does  not  attempt  them. 
Law,  for  example,  can  enforce  a  stamp  duty,  by 
invalidating  all  legal  documents  not  so  attested. 
It  can  prevent  the  sale  of  drink  in  settled  com- 
munities without  a  license.  It  can  stop  smuggling 
by  travelers.  It  can  prescribe  difficult  and  costly 
processes  for  marriage ;  as,  not  long  ago,  in  Porto 
Eico  and  the  Philippines.  Or  it  can  tell  people,  as 
it  virtually  does  in  New  Jersey,  that  they  must 
not  do  anything  on  Sunday  but  go  to  church.  And, 
conceivably,  the  law  might  command  people  to  be 
good.  Yet  all  the  force  in  the  world  would  not 
make  people  good.  Two  hundred  years  ago  there 
were  many  offences  for  which  a  man  might  be  put 
to  death ;  still  it  did  not  make  people  good.  Again ; 
with  all  its  might,  the  law  could  not  compel  people 
to  follow  a  prescribed  religion. 

Clearly,  then,  there  is  a  sphere  within  which 
law  is  effective,  and  another  sphere  within  which 
it  is  ineffective.  In  this  other  sphere  we  cannot 
conceive  any  transformation  of  human  nature  or 
human  society  that  would  subject  it  to  our  law ; — ' 
and  this  not  alone  in  high,  spiritual  things,  but  in 
such  every-day  matters  as  overeating  or  over- 


250  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

dressing  or  speaking  the  truth  or  showing  courtesy 
or  rising  betimes,  and  a  thousand  other  like 
matters. 

But  even  within  its  own  sphere  law  is  not  om- 
nipotent. In  all  governments,  and  particularly  in 
free  governments,  it  cannot  go  beyond  the  judg- 
ment and  conscience  of  the  community.  That 
judgment  and  that  conscience  vary  from  time  to 
time  and  from  place  to  place.  In  Richmond,  Vir- 
ginia, the  Sunday-closing  law  is  effective,  because 
the  people  approve  it.  In  New  York  it  is  dis- 
regarded, because  the  people  are  against  it.  And, 
such  is  the  contrariness  of  human  nature,  the 
mere  fact  that  a  community  votes  for  a  law  is  no 
assurance  that  it  believes  in  it  or  proposes  to  obey 
it;  it  may  be  in  favor  of  the  law,  but  against  its 
enforcement.  It  is  one  thing  to  furnish  the  law, 
and  another  to  furnish  the  force  needed  to  ensure 
obedience.  That  is  why  we  have  so  many  dead- 
letter  laws  in  this  country, — we  forget  that  a  law 
is  not  self-enforcing.  The  ultimate  factor  is  al- 
ways the  amount  and  effectiveness  of  the  available 
force. 

And  is  religion  to  mix  itself  up  with  this  com- 
plex of  disputed  expediencies  and  powers,  so 
changeable  in  its  principles,  so  uncertain  in  its 
operations?  "What  passage  in  its  charter  so  em- 
powers it?  "What  wisdom  from  on  high  qualifies 
it?  What  example  of  our  Lord  justifies  it?  No; 
religion  has  naught  to  do  with  all  this,  except  to 
instruct  its  followers  to  be  law-abiding  citizens 
or  subjects,  as  long  as  law  does  not  interfere  with 
their  duty  to  God.    It  is  true  that,  even  outside 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  251 

such  interference,  laws  may  be  helpful  or  prejudi- 
cial to  religion,  indirectly.  For  example,  a  law 
that  herds  first  offenders  with  hardened  criminals 
in  jail  makes  it  difficult  for  religion  to  do  for  those 
boys  or  girls  what  otherwise  it  might.  Likewise, 
the  want  of  a  law  (in  eifect,  therefore,  a  permis- 
sive law)  regulating  hours  of  labor  for  the  young, 
and  hours  and  conditions  in  factories,  mines,  and 
hazardous  occupations  is  an  obstacle  to  religion. 
The  question  then  arises  whether  organized  re- 
ligion is  not,  in  such  instances,  justified  in  ap- 
proaching the  state  in  the  interest  of  better  laws. 
It  is  a  question  that  has  two  sides,  though  the 
practice  of  the  church  has  been  one-sided.  It 
may  well  be  that  this  should  all  be  left  to  the  citi- 
zen as  citizen.  But  two  or  three  things  in  the 
situation  are  clear.  One  is  that  the  church  should 
ask  nothing  in  its  own  interest  or  religion's.  An- 
other is  that  it  should  ask  only  what  the  mind  of 
the  community  is  virtually  a  unit  on.  A  third  is 
that  it  should  not  propose  measures,  but  only  the 
ends; — not  a  particular  bill,  as  to  whose  sufficiency 
it  has  no  competency  for  judging,  but  some  enact- 
ment that  will  stop  the  evil  aimed  at. 

Even  in  this  much  there  is  grave  danger  of  an 
entanglement  of  religion  with  government.  There 
is  the  danger  that  government  will  seek  to  use  this 
powerful  ally  for  its  selfish,  and  not  always  cred- 
itable, ends;  and  there  is  danger  that  the  churdh 
will  see  in  Caesar's  legions  a  short-cut  to  its  own 
aggrandizement, — both  at  the  sacrifice  of  religion. 
Perhaps  both  church  and  state  would  be  better 


252     THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

off  today,  if  each  had  attended  strictly  to  its  own 
business  from  the  beginning. 

In  this  misalliance,  candor  obliges  the  admis- 
sion that  the  state  has  sinned  less  grievonsly  than 
the  church.  As  a  rule,  the  state  recognizes  its 
limitations.  The  great  pagan  states  never  had 
any  interest  in  religion,  except  as  an  element  con- 
tributing to  prosperity  and  progress;  it  was  a 
secular  religion  that  they  believed  in.  The  Chris- 
tian state,  too,  has  used  religion  in  the  same  way : 
the  temporal  order  secured,  the  state  has  had  no 
interest  in  things  spiritual.  As  to  all  these  mat- 
ters it  has  been  a  Gallio  (Acts  18.17) ; — indiffer- 
ent, easy-going,  tolerant.  Left  to  itself,  it  is  little 
disposed  to  intrude  into  private  conduct  or  mat- 
ters touching  the  conscience.  It  is  only  when  the 
church  gets  control  of  the  secular  power  that  the 
dark  days  come,  with  their  tortures  and  death  and 
banishment  and  outlawry  for  offences  purely 
spiritual.  A  church  using  carnal  weapons  is  not 
only  worse  than  the  state;  it  is  worse  than  no 
church  at  all.  The  worst  church,  minding,  how- 
ever poorly,  its  spiritual  business,  is  far  superior 
to  the  best  church,  with  its  finger  in  politics. 
This  was,  at  bottom,  the  thought  of  a  Eussian 
statesman  in  his  objection  to  the  separation  of 
church  and  state :  he  said  that  the  church,  free  and 
independent,  would  soon  come  to  exercise  a  gall- 
ing tyranny  over  both  government  and  society. 
Be  it  remembered  that  it  was  a  political  church 
which  coerced  the  unwilling  state  to  put  Jesus  to 
death. 

And  all  this  is.  in  the  nature  of  things.    Just 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  253 

because  the  interests  of  the  state  are  so  few  and 
so  modest,  to-wit,  worldly  well-being,  a  modest 
conformity  satisfies  it.  Let  a  man  obey  the  laws, 
— he  can  live  and  feel  and  strive  and  agonize  out- 
side of  this,  he  can  live  fifty  lives  of  his  own,  for 
all  of  the  state.  The  part  of  his  life  that  the  state 
cares  for  may  be  so  insignificant,  in  comparison 
with  the  rest,  as  hardly  to  be  worth  reckoning ;  yet 
In  all  this  larger  part  he  is  free,  and  the  state  will 
maintain  him  in  that  freedom,  against  all  aggres- 
sors. 

But  religion  looks  to  no  mere  outward  con- 
formity. It  searches  out  the  deep  things  of  the 
heart.  It  "is  living,  and  active,  and  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,  and  piercing  even  to  the 
dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and 
marrow,  and  quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart"  (Heb.  4.12).  It  scrutinizes, 
feels,  weighs,  tests,  appraises  things  that  the  state 
does  not  so  much  as  know  exist.  This  is  religion's 
proper  office.  Now  take  this  subtle,  searching, 
ubiquitous  agent  out  of  its  own  sphere  of  thoughts, 
feelings,  fears,  doubts,  hopes,  reproaches,  grat- 
itudes, aspirations,  confessions,  adorations;  put 
a  club  into  its  hands,  and  say,  "With  this,  rule 
man's  outward  life";  and  what  will  you  get? 
You  will  pervert  religion  into  a  monster ;  and  with 
it  you  will  bedevil  society.  Jesus,  who  could 
presently  summon  to  his  aid  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  angels,  but  who  submitted,  rather  than 
overcome  force  by  force,  has  lived  in  vain,  if  his 
church  sets  itself  to  playing  Caesar,  and  summon- 
ing, not  angels,  but  spies  and  strong-arm  men,  to 


254  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

do  its  work.  The  very  pervasiveness  and  ubiquity 
of  its  proper  office  becomes  a  terrible  tyranny, 
when  applied  to  outward  conduct  and  enforced  by 
fines  and  blows.  A  political  church  is  the  betrayal 
of  Christ  with  a  kiss.  How  often  must  the  ex- 
periment of  theocracy  be  tried,  and  come  to  dis- 
astrous end,  before  the  church  will  learn  its 
lesson,  ''My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world"? 
"Whenever  you  see  a  church  entering  politics,  you 
see  a  church  leaving  religion.  And  when  you  hear 
a  religious  organization  boasting  that  it  is  "the 
greatest  political  force  in  the  country",  you  hear 
a  Christianity  "glorying  in  its  shame".  The 
children  of  this  world  are,  in  their  generation, 
wise  enough  to  attend  to  their  own  business :  why 
cannot  the  children  of  light  be  as  wise?  Or  is  it 
that 

"The  churchman  fain  would  kill  his  church. 
As  the  churches  killed  their  Christ ' '  ? 

Is  it,  then,  that  the  church,  in  dictating  or  ad- 
ministering the  law  of  the  state,  is  too  harsh,  too 
thoroughgoing,  too  compelling, — in  a  word,  too 
effective?  No,  indeed;  its  tyranny  is  the  least 
part  of  its  offence :  here  is  the  thing, — it  is  cruel 
and  inefficient.  It  is  not  "the  strong  man";  it  is 
only  the  strong  fool.  Its  failure  is  as  pitiful  as 
its  tyranny  is  shameful.  It  sins  and  fails.  It  is 
on  this  very  point, — the  failure  of  the  law  to  make 
men  good, — that  St.  Paul  fastens.  He  comes  back 
to  it  again  and  again.  He  never  tires  of  preaching 
the  impotence  of  the  law,  in  contrast  with  the 
might  and  majesty  of  the  spirit.     Let  the  writ- 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  255 

ten  law  be  never  so  thorougligoing  in  its  proMbi- 
tions,  and  fierce  in  its  threatenings,  even  to  the 
lash  and  faggot; — yet  St.  Paul  assures  us  that, 
whatever  the  police  force  back  of  it,  it  can  never 
make  men  the  thing  Christ  came  into  the 
world  to  make  them:  it  may  make  them 
law-abiding,  outwardly:  it  cannot  make  them 
Christian:  "If  there  had  been  a  law  given 
which  could  make  alive,  verily  righteousness 
would  have  been  of  the  law"  (Gal.  3.21). 
But  this  inward  deliverance  is  just  "what 
the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through 
the  flesh"  (Rom.  8.3).  There  it  is, — the  remark- 
able thing  about  the  law,  for  the  things  of  Christ, 
is  not  its  inflexibility  nor  its  peremptoriness : — 
in  these  it  is  exceeded  by  the  new  law  of  Christ, 
searching  out  the  deep  things  of  the  heart: — the 
remarkable  thing  about  the  law,  for  the  things  of 
Christ,  is  its  weakness, — its  weakness  and  failure. 
It  demands,  but  does  not  enable;  accordingly  the 
more  exacting  it  is,  the  more  of  a  failure  it  is.  It 
is  only  by  asking  little  that  it  can  get  anything. 
Not  only  was  the  law  "cold,  inert,  passive.  It 
pointed  severely  to  the  path  of  right  and  duty, 
but  there  its  function  ended;  it  gave  no  help 
toward  the  performance  of  what  it  required"; 
but  "by  a  certain  strange  perversity  in  human  na- 
ture, it  seemed  actually  to  provoke  to  disobedience. 
The  very  fact  that  a  thing  was  forbidden  seemed 
to  make  its  attractions  all  the  greater"  (Rom. 
7.8).  "And  this  was  equally  true  of  the  individ- 
ual and  of  the  race ;  the  better  and  fuller  the  law, 
the  more  glaring  was  the  contrast  to  the  practice 


256  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

of  those  who  lived  under  it.  The  Jews  were  at  the 
head  of  all  mankind  in  their  privileges,  but  mor- 
ally they  were  not  much  better  than  the  Gentiles. 
In  the  course  of  his  travels  St.  Paul  was  led  to 
visit  a  number  of  the  scattered  colonies  of  Jews ; 
and,  when  he  compares  them  with  the  Gentiles,  he 
can  only  turn  on  them  a  biting  irony  (Rom.  2.17- 
29).  The  truth  must  be  acknowledged;  as  a  sys- 
tem, Law  of  whatever  kind  had  failed.  The 
break-down  of  Jewish  Law  was  most  complete, 
because  that  law  was  the  best"  (Sanday  and 
Headlam,  "Eomans",  in  International  Critical 
Commentary,  page  188). 

It  is  true  that  the  law  which  St.  Paul  pro- 
nounces so  weak  and  ineffective  in  the  sphere  of 
religion,  because  it  could  not  make  "alive",  was, 
in  his  immediate  thought,  the  Mosaic  Law;  but 
not  exclusively.  ''He  deals  with  it  rather  as  the 
classic  type  of  law  in  religion :  it  is  really  law  as 
law  .  .  .  that  he  has  in  mind"  (Enc.  Brit. 
"Paul  the  Apostle",  page  941b).  "The  principle 
here  asserted  applies  to  every  authoritative  pre- 
scription of  conduct"  (J.  Agar  Beet,  "St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Romans",  page  189).  "Paul  was 
the  pioneer  who  secured  mankind  forever  against 
bondage  to  religious  legalism"  (Enc.  Brit. 
"Paul",  page  941b).  It  was  not  that  law  was  not 
needed:  it  was  only  that  it  was  not  needed  in  re- 
ligion. Elsewhere  it  had  its  place.  St.  Paul  even 
describes  it  as  "holy,  righteous,  and  good"  (Rom. 
7.12),  in  its  proper  place.  If  it  had  no  other 
function,  it  would  still  serve,  indirectly,  to  check 
spiritual  extravagances,  such  as  have  at  times  dis- 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  257 

figured  Christian  history;  when,  in  the  name  of 
the  spirit,  men  have  thrown  off  all  restraint  as  to 
the  body.  The  law  sharply  reminds  these  that  any 
religion  which  comes  short  of  the  works  of  the 
law  is  thereby  condemned  as  not  of  Christ. 

What,  then,  under  the  Gospel,  takes  the  place  of 
law?  This:  "If  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a 
new  creature:  the  old  things  are  passed  away; 
behold,  they  are  become  new"  (2  Cor.  5.17).  "As, 
to  the  Jew,  life  was  lived  under  the  Law  or  in  it 
as  native  element,  so  the  Christian  life  was  "in 
Christ",  as  element  or  law  of  being  (Enc.  Brit. 
"Paul",  page  941c).  Under  the  state,  obedience 
is  demanded  for  an  impersonal  thing,  law:  this 
regimen,  in  fact,  prides  itself  on  being  "a  govern- 
ment of  laws,  not  of  men";  and  it  rightly  insists 
on  this.  But  in  Christ  it  is  the  very  reverse: 
instead  of  an  impersonal  and  mechanical  law, 
made  up  of  "Don'ts"  and  "Musts",  we  have  an 
adorable  Person.  In  the  one  case  we  obey  because 
of  fear  or  self-interest  or  conscience :  in  the  other 
"the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us".  The  one 
principle  starts  from  without.  The  other  is  so 
wholly  inward  that  it  is  not  so  much  even  the 
external,  historical  Christ  that  dominates  the 
Christian  as  it  is  the  living,  spiritual,  present 
"Christ  in  you"  (Col.  1.27).  Accordingly  St. 
Paul  does  not  scruple  to  say:  "Even  though  we 
have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we 
know  him  so  no  more"  (2  Cor.  5.16).  And  his 
best  prayer  for  those  whom  he  addresses  is,  "that 
ye  may  be  strengthened  with  power  through  his 
Spirit  in  the  inward  man;  that  Christ  may  dwell 


258  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

in  your  hearts  through  faith"  (Eph.  3.16-17).  St. 
Paul  was  the  first  man,  known  to  history,  who  pro- 
posed to  the  world,  as  the  basis  of  life,  devotion 
to  a  person  instead  of  devotion  to  a  principle. 
Herein  he  rightly  discerned  the  heart  of  Christ's 
Gospel,  with  its  "Come  unto  me";  and  this  is  his 
originality  and  preeminence. 

But  the  Gospel,  in  this,  as  in  all  else,  has  its 
roots  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  seer  who  wrote 
of  the  Messiah,  "He  will  not  cry,  nor  lift  up  his 
voice"  (Is.  42.2),  had  a  clearer  vision  of  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  than  multitudes  of  20th 
Century  Christians.  For  these  words,  "He  will 
not  cry,  nor  lift  up  his  voice",  mean  that  the 
Messiah's  "methods  shall  be  purely  inward  and 
spiritual,  contrasting  with  the  imperious  will  of 
an  Elijah  and  the  destructive  agency  of  a  Cyrus" 
(Cheyne). 

This  central  feature  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is 
well  summed  up  by  Prof.  Otto  Pfleiderer,  in  dis- 
cussing the  place  of  Robertson  in  the  religious 
thought  of  England.  He  says :  '  ^  Faith  is  the  life 
of  Christ  begun  in  us,  which  God  counts  as 
righteousness,  because,  as  the  divine  life  in  the 
soul,  it  is  the  root  and  spring  of  righteousness. 
As  the  inward  principle  of  a  morally  good  will, 
it  sets  us  free  from  external  laws,  which  can  only 
incite  to  transgression  or  produce  conventional 
legality"  (Development  of  Theology,  Book  4, 
Chapter  2,  page  385). 

Law,  then,  aims  to  keep  the  man  from  doing 
certain  things,  and  to  make  him  do  certain  other 
things.     But  that  is  not  religion's  interest.     Re- 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  259 

ligion^s  interest  is  to  make  the  man  himself  dif- 
ferent, so  that  he  will  wish  to  do  certain  things 
and  to  refrain  from  other  things,  because  the  love 
of  Christ  so  constraineth  him.  The  difference 
between  religion  and  law  is  the  difference  between 
being  and  doing.  A  man  may  fully  satisfy  the 
law,  and  yet  be  dead  before  God.  Again,  he  may, 
in  a  matter  of  right  conscience,  transgress  the 
law,  and  yet  be  "alive  unto  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord".  It  is  not  that  religion  is  in- 
different to  conduct;  but  it  affects  conduct  by  af- 
fecting the  heart;  out  of  which  ''are  the  issues 
of  life"  (Pro.  4.23). 

For  example,  there  is  this  matter  of  intemper- 
ance. The  interest  of  the  state  is  that  the  man 
stay  sober.  Its  inducements  are  several,  direct 
and  indirect ;  and  they  are  more  or  less  effective. 
Among  them  is  a  law,  backed  by  force.  Eeligion, 
too,  desires  that  the  man  stay  sober;  but  its  in- 
ducement is  only  one,  and  that  one  just  a  senti- 
ment, the  love  of  Christ  and  the  desire  to  be  like 
him.  Insufficient,  sentimental, — you  say  ?  Yet  the 
history  of  the  ages  demonstrates  this:  "Every 
one  that  hath  this  hope  set  on  him  purifieth  him- 
self, even  as  he  is  pure"  (1  John  3.3).  Yes; 
granted:  "Every  one  that  hath  this  hope":  but 
what  of  the  multitudes  that  have  not  this  hope, 
and  cannot  be  brought  to  have  it?  Why,  just 
this :  the  church  has  naught  to  do  with  them,  ex- 
cept to  strive  and  pray  that  it  may  be  born  in 
their  hearts.  This  is  its  one  task;  beyond  this 
it  has  no  commission,  no  power,  no  competency, 
no  responsibility.     Those  that  will  not  hear,  it 


260  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

judges  not;  but  it  has  nothing  else  to  offer  them, 
— nothing  but  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of 
God  and  Savior  of  the  world.  The  state  may  look 
after  them,  as  it  looks  after  us  all;  but  the  church 
knows  only  its  living  Lord. 

Nor  is  religion  indifferent  to  temporal  things. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  religion  that  detaches  itself 
from  this  world,  as  "the  tomb  of  the  soul". 
Again,  there  is  a  religion  that  merges  itself  in  this 
world,  as  the  only  certitude.  But  Christ's  re- 
ligion does  neither.  It  sets  to  work  "to  build  up 
a  new  kingdom  grounded  in  the  purely  inward 
life,  but  working  with  mighty  effect  in  the  visible 
sphere"  (Eucken,  "What  Is  Christianity?"  page 
82).  Eeligion  (like  reason)  has  emerged  very 
late  in  human  evolution;  but,  though  last  come, 
it  is  in  prerogative  "the  first-born  of  every  crea- 
ture" (over  every  created  thing).  Yet  it  is  so 
only  by  living  its  own  "purely  inward  life". 

It  may  be  that  the  commingling  of  church  and 
state  through  the  ages  was  an  inevitable  deprava- 
tion :  this  is  only  to  say  that  the  Gospel  lived  and 
wrought,  for  that  period,  unorganized,  in  the 
hearts  of  faithful  individuals.  It  looks  at  times 
as  if  this  were  so  still.  And,  indeed,  that  secu- 
larized church  had  fruits  to  show,  pleasant  to  the 
eyes,  of  its  forbidden  union;  for  the  greatest 
statesmen  of  the  world  were  all  in  it,  and  all  served 
it,  and  did  many  mighty  works,  after  their  kind. 
But  today  they  do  not  serve  it  in  their  capacity 
as  statesmen.  In  that  capacity  they  serve  the 
state;  where  they  belong.  Therefore,  when  the 
church  today  essays  a  political  role,  it  is  apt  to 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  261 

be  impotent,  or  foolish,  or  eviL  Bethink  you  of 
a  ministerial  association's  attempting  to  purify 
politics  by  running  its  own  "civic  righteousness" 
municipal  ticket;  and  of  the  results,  pitiful  and 
ludicrous.  It  is  true  that  the  church  in  politics 
sometimes  becomes  a  formidable  power ;  but  then, 
too,  its  want  of  great  minds,  with  grasp  and  vision 
and  balance,  is  painfully  evident.  The  greatest 
minds  of  today  are  in  the  church;  but  they  are 
not  in  church  politics.  And  all  that  the  church 
gains  in  political  influence  it  loses,  and  more,  in 
spiritual  influence.  When  it  is  talking  politics, 
it  is  not  preaching  Christ.  And  what  the  world 
needs  is  more  Christ  and  less  politics;  more  love 
and  less  hate;  more  faith,  and  less  suspicion. 

The  first  thing  in  any  vital  reform,  from  the 
Christian  point  of  view,  is  not  law :  the  last  thing 
is  law.  The  first  thing  is  the  conquest  of  the 
spirit;  and  often  enough  this  first  thing  is  all  that 
is  needed.  The  effort  to  actualize  the  Christian 
ideal  by  law  misses  the  whole  secret  of  Christ's 
Gospel.  It  coarsens  and  secularizes  religion,  and 
makes  law  fanatical,  hypocritical,  tyrannical,  cor- 
rupt. It  is  the  old  mistake  of  the  multitudes  who 
would  seize  Christ  by  force  and  make  him  king. 
Time  and  again  should  the  Christian  call  to  mind 
these  words,  "What  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that 
it  was  weak";  for  this  Christ  does  in  us  because 
he  is  strong, — mighty,  invincible,  conquering  and 
to  conquer, — not  by  the  club,  but  through  the 
might  of  adoring  love.  Wliy,  even  a  lesser  attach- 
ment, as  to  parent  or  wife  or  child,  as  to  art  or 
science  or  athletics  or  even  to  money-getting,  will 


262  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

do  mucli  to  withhold  a  man  from  many  forms  of 
excess  or  hurt.  How  much  more  the  sympathetic 
identification  of  oneself  with  Christ,  so  that  '4t 
is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me" 
(Gal.  2.20).  The  fruit  of  this  Spirit  "is  love,  joy, 
peace,  longsuffering,  kindness,  goodness,  faith- 
fulness, meekness,  self-control"  (Gal.  5.22).  Can 
the  fruits  of  the  law  compare  with  these"?  And 
note  that  last  named  virtue,  self-control.  This 
is  nothing  but  the  temperance  that  we  are  seek- 
ing: only  it  is  a  temperance,  not  outwardly,  from 
fear  or  interest,  but  of  the  heart,  rooted  and 
grounded  in  religion.  This  very  virtue  that  we 
are  now  so  intent  on  is,  according  to  St.  Paul,  a 
fruit  of  the  Spirit,  that  Spirit  which  is  life,  that 
life  which  is  life  indeed.  No  law  ever  gave  birth 
to  it.  No  fear  ever  nourished  it.  No  force  ever 
restrained  its  wandering  steps.  It  begins,  con- 
tinues, and  ends  in  the  adoring  love  of  Christ. 
This  is  Christian  temperance,  or  self-control,  and 
it  is  the  only  kind  that  the  church  has  a  right  to 
be  interested  in.  It  is  certain  that  the  church  can- 
not be  interested  in  it  and  in  legal  temperance 
at  the  same  time.  Therefore  it  is  that,  if  religion 
enter  politics,  in  the  interest  of  temperance,  it 
must  soon  give  over  its  spiritual  function.  It  be- 
comes bad  religion,  to  be  bad  law.  Christian 
temperance  should  begin  by  working  with  the  in- 
dividual ;  and  then  organize  individuals  into  asso- 
ciations, pledged  to  seek  and  to  save  their  weak 
brothers,  in  the  name  and  power  of  Christ.  But 
it  can  not  carry  on  politics  and  religion  at  the 
same  time.    In  fact,  the  institution  that  can  do 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  263 

this  is  not  yet  born.  No  eye  (but  One)  can 
scrutinize  both  inside  and  outside  at  once.  In- 
evitably such  a  religion  sinks  to  a  religion  of 
legalism,  ending  in  a  residuum  of  external 
''Don'ts",  backed  by  legal  violence.  Such  a  re- 
ligion more  and  more  inclines  to  know  nothing 
among  men  save  the  law  written.  Its  view  is  that 
Christ  is  helpless  without  a  written  law,  backed 
by  a  club ; — Christ  dependent  on  Caesar,  the  spirit 
on  the  flesh,  eternity  on  time,  God  on  man.  This 
is  what  comes,  and  must  come,  of  tying  up  the 
church  with  government,  religion  with  law. 

The  routine  of  law  and  usage  and  public  opin- 
ion often  keeps  a  man  straight,  though  he  have 
not  the  inward  power.  But  let  that  man  be  taken 
out  of  this  familiar  fabric  into  other  social  con- 
ditions, where  he  is  not  borne  upon  by  these  in- 
fluences, and  see  how  external  and  inorganic  all 
this  outward  law  is.  Men  coming  out  of  the 
settled  conditions  of  Europe  to  America,  or  going 
from  our  Eastern  states  to  mining  districts  of 
the  West,  soon  show  the  nature  of  the  constraint 
that  held  them.  The  outward  convention,  the 
"law",  is  cast  off,  like  old  clothes;  but  the  heart 
that  was  God's  knows  no  change. 

It  is  sad  to  see  those  churches  that  arose  as  a 
protest  against  state  religion,  which  were  loud  for 
freedom  in  things  spiritual,  now  that  they  are 
free,  themselves  invoking,  through  political  activ- 
ity, the  state  to  come  to  their  aid, — ''the  united 
churches  in  action,  the  greatest  political  force  in 
the  country".    It  looks  as  if  their  real  grievance 


264  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

had  been  that  the  lash  was  on  their  back  instead 
of  in  their  hand. 

A  truly  Christian  people,  making  up  a  political 
community,  would  be  least  of  all  inclined  to  en- 
act their  religion  into  law.  As  citizens  of  a  sec- 
ular state,  they  would  frame  their  legislation 
wholly  from  the  secular  point  of  view,  with  only 
secular  ends,  with  only  secular  instruments,  with 
only  secular  sanctions. 

"You  cannot  make  a  man  good  by  law"  is  a 
common  saying,  sometimes  scoffed  at.  But  those 
who  know  and  understand  it  have  the  secret  of 
the  Gospel;  as  the  scoffers  do  not. 

Spiritual  men  of  all  branches  of  the  church, 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  ought  to  say  Amen  to 
the  following  noble  words  of  the  great  Baptist 
preacher,  Charles  H.  Spurgeon,  of  London : 

YOUE  SUISTDAY  BILLS  AND  ALL  OTHEB  FORMS  OF 
ACT-OF-PAELIAMENT  RELIGION  SEEM  TO  ME  TO  BE  ALL 
WRONG.  GIVE  US  A  FAIR  FIELD  AND  NO  FAVOR,  AND 
OUR  FAITH  HAS  NO  CAUSE  TO  FEAR.  CHRIST  WANTS 
NO  HELP  FROM  CAESAR.  I  SHOULD  BE  AFRAID  TO  BOR- 
ROW HELP  FROM  THE  GOVERNMENT.  IT  WOULD  LOOK 
TO  ME  AS  IF  I  RESTED  ON  AN  ARM  OF  FLESH,  INSTEAD 
OF  DEPENDING  ON   THE   LIVING   GOD. 

n 

The  attitude  of  the  church  in  this  country 
toward  those  who  sell  drink  is  not  in  accord  with 
the  way  of  Christ.  A  portion  of  the  church, 
though  the  smaller  portion,  has  approached  this 
class  with  a  curse  and  a  blow ;  and  the  larger  por- 
tion has  not  approached  it  at  all.    No  consider- 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  265 

able  portion  of  the  church  has  even  attempted  to 
see  what  could  be  done  in  a  spirit  of  sympathy 
and  love.  This  class  of  men  have  yet  to  be  ap- 
proached in  the  way  in  which  they  should  have 
been  approached  at  the  beginning;  that  is,  as 
brethren  in  Christ;  and  appealed  to  to  cooperate 
in  the  freeing  of  the  traffic  from  wrong.  Instead, 
they  have  been  reviled  with  curses,  and  beaten 
with  many  stripes,  in  the  name  of  Christ.  But 
no  man  is  won  that  way;  and  no  man  is  made 
to  hate  his  wrong  that  way;  no  man, — not  you 
nor  I.  Let  the  church  even  now,  late  as  it  is,  go 
to  these  brethren,  and  say:  "Let  us  work  to- 
gether, in  a  spirit  of  cooperation,  to  make  this 
business  clean  and  good,  for  Christ's  sake,  who 
came  'drinking';  who  himself  drank,  and  made 
drink  for  the  guests  at  the  marriage  feast;  who, 
on  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  gave  drink 
to  his  apostles,  and  established  the  wine-cup  on 
the  altar  of  every  church,  till  his  coming  again". 
Would  they  ignore  this  invitation!  They  have 
had  no  chance  to  accept  it.  But  it  is  our  duty, 
as  the  church  of  Christ,  to  do  this  much,  if  we 
do  aught;  and,  when  it  is  rejected,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  ask  what  next.  Perhaps  this  is  as  far 
as  we  ought  to  go.  It  surely  is  too  odious  to 
think  of  Christ's  church's  acting  as  spy  or 
policeman  for  the  state.  If  men  who  deal  in  drink 
prove  obdurate  in  wrong-doing,  it  is  for  the  state, 
not  the  church,  to  deal  with  them  temporally. 
Let  Caesar  pronounce  the  curse,  and  swing  the 
club.  Even  the  medieval  Inquisition,  in  handing 
its  victim  over  to  the  secular  power  for  punish- 


266  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

ment,  went  through  the  form  of  recommending 
him  to  mercy.  Too  often  in  this  country  today, 
it  is  zealots  for  religion  who,  in  the  name  of 
church  and  religion,  urge  and  drive  the  civil  mag- 
istrate to  disgrace  and  destroy  those  whom  they 
have  spied  out  and  informed  against.  It  is  not 
good  to  see  Christ's  church  lusting  so  for  blood: 
*  ^  If  ye  bite  and  devour  one  another,  take  heed  that 
ye  be  not  consumed  one  of  another"  (Gal.  5.15). 
This  is  just  what  happens,  when  religion  starts 
in  to  combat  intemperance,  not  by  the  might  of 
the  spirit,  but  by  force  and  arms. 

Deplorable  evils,  it  is  true,  have  fastened  on 
the  drink  traffic;  and  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of 
Christians  to  take  note  of  them.  But  there  is  a 
right  and  a  wrong  way  of  doing  it.  The  wrong 
way  is  to  curse  and  smite  the  whole  institution 
of  drink,  with  its  evil  and  good  alike.  But  not 
even  psychology  or  ethics,  much  less  our  religion, 
supports  us  in  this  way  of  going  about  moral  re- 
form :  they  both  frown  on  the  proposal  to  remove 
a  moral  evil  by  simply  overpowering  it  with  brute 
force.  The  approved  doctrine  is  rather  that  moral 
evil  springs  at  bottom  from  a  lawful  instinct, 
which  somehow  or  other  loses  its  way.  The  rem- 
edy is  to  get  it  back  in  the  way.  Now,  drink  being 
right,  the  traffic  cannot  in  itself  be  wrong.  Where 
it  is  wrong,  those  who  lead  should  show  us  the 
wrong,  and,  what  is  of  equal  importance,  should 
show  us  the  right.  It  does  no  good  for  them  to 
stand  apart  and  threaten, — "If  you  don't  reform, 
we  will  destroy  you".  The  assumption  that  this 
reform  is  a  matter  for  those  only  who  deal  in 


RELIGION  AND  LAW  267 

drink  is  fallacious.  Every  one  of  ns,  whether  we 
drink  or  not,  has  a  duty  in  the  matter;  for  the 
guilt  is  social,  the  problem  is  social,  the  remedy  is 
social.  And  only  those  who  are  as  forward  to 
vindicate  the  right  in  this  concern  as  to  condemn 
the  wrong  can  be  effective.  No  indiscriminate 
passion  for  destruction  will  answer.  Only  after 
intelligence  and  conscience  have  set  in  motion  the 
wholesome  influences  that  by  their  growth  will 
naturally  crowd  out  what  is  bad,  overcoming  evil 
with  good,  can  law  effectively  use  the  club  to 
suppress  the  laggard  and  incorrigible.  With  this 
part  of  it,  however,  religion  has  nothing  to  do. 
What  we  have  to  do  is  to  enter  into  the  situation 
sympathetically,  not  in  order  to  upset  everything, 
but  with  our  first  thought  to  find  and  justify  and 
accredit  and  establish  what  is  innocent  and  good, 
and  to  censure  and  destroy  only  in  order  to  this 
affirmative  work.  No  institution  can  be  reformed 
by  its  enemies ;  only  its  wise  friends  can  do  this. 
In  the  words  of  Prof.  Henry  Jones  (Hibbert 
Journal,  October,  1905), — "The  effective  re- 
former must  find  his  fulcrum  for  raising  society 
in  things  as  they  are.  He  must  live  within  the 
world,  if  he  is  to  make  it  better,  and  arm  himself 
with  its  powers,  in  order  to  conquer  it". 

There  are,  in  religion,  two  ways  that,  in  their 
start,  a  hasty  glance  may  not  distinguish.  The 
description  of  them  sounds  alike  to  the  ear  that 
is  not  attent.  But  one  is  the  way  of  freedom  and 
self-mastery;  the  other,  the  way  of  force  and 
cruelty  and  bondage. 

The  first  wav  is  this: 


268  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

//  thy  hand  or  thy  foot  offend  thee,  cut  them 
off,  and  cast  them  from  thee:  it  is  better  for  thee 
to  enter  into  life  halt  or  maimed,  rather  than 
having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  ever- 
lasting fire. 

And  if  thine  eye  offend  thee,  pluch  it  out,  and 
cast  it  from  thee:  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter 
into  life  with  one  eye,  rather  than  having  two 
eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire  (Mat.  18.8-9). 

The  other  way  is  this: 

If  thy  neighbor's  hand  or  foot  offend  thee,  cut 
them  off,  and  cast  them  from  thee:  it  is  better  for 
him  to  enter  into  life  halt  or  maimed,  rather  than 
having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  ever- 
lasting fire. 

And  if  thy  neighbor's  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it 
out,  and  cast  it  from  thee:  it  is  better  for  him  to 
enter  into  life  with  one  eye,  rather  than  having 
two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire. 

The  first  is  the  way  of  Jesus. 

The  second  is  the  way  of  the  rigorist. 


CHAPTER  n 

CHAKACTEE  AND   CODDLING 


The  theory  of  moral  prophylaxis  issuing  in  the 
indiscriminate  ban  on  drink  is  in  sharp  contrast 
with  that  of  the  Gospel.  The  Gospel,  with  all  its 
tenderness,  relies  on  character;  this  rigorism, 
with  all  its  terrors,  on  coddling.  Eigorism's 
ideal  is  the  insurance  of  character  by  systematic, 
unsleeping,  and  jealous  espionage,  in  order  to 
keep  temptation  away,  at  whatever  sacrifice,  so 
that  the  soul  may  rest  unassailed.  But  this  was 
not  the  principle  of  Jesus, — "Behold,  I  send  you 
forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves:  be  ye 
therefore  wise"  (Mat.  10.16).  This  wisdom  would 
enable  them  to  choose  between  the  evil  and  the 
good.  And  so  the  little  band  went  forth,  to  con- 
quer sin,  Satan,  and  death  for  the  Lord  and  his 
Christ.  It  is  an  unscriptural  principle  that  makes 
immunity  from  struggle, — an  easy  and  safe  moral 
career, — its  end.  The  picture  of  Christian 
soldiers  lying  safe  behind  their  battlements  is  an 
ignoble  one.  "The  earth  is  the  Lord's":  and  it 
ought  to  be  our  pride  to  go  forth  and  conquer  it 
for  him.  Not  immunity  from  temptation,  but  con- 
quest over  temptation,  is  Christ's  way. 

And  here  is  the  danger  in  the  great  humani- 
tarian enthusiasm  that  is  sweeping  over  the 
world.    It  is  devoting  its  attention  too  much  to 

269 


270  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

environment,  and  too  little  to  character ;  no  doubt, 
in  reaction  from  the  contrary  extreme.    But 

*'The  fault,  dear  Brutus,  is  not  in  our  stars, 
But  in  ourselves,  that  we  are  underlings". 

Julius  Caesar,  1.2. 

Are  we  not  wrongly  taking  it  for  granted  that 
character  will  develop  satisfactorily,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  difficulties; — in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
most  of  the  greatest  characters  we  know  of  have 
developed  in  the  teeth  of  difficulties?  The  policy 
is  to  make  this  world  safe  and  comfortable,  not 
through  the  up-build  of  conscience  and  will,  but 
by  protective  legislation.  Everybody  together  is 
to  do  everything,  but  nobody  by  himself  is  to  do 
anything, — except  wait  for  the  legislature  to  make 
it  easy  for  him  to  be  good.  Too  many  parents  are 
shifting  their  responsibility  to  school,  church, 
courts,  police.  Young  persons  go  wrong  largely 
because  their  parents  have  failed  in  their  duty 
to  them.  And  churches  are  going  wrong  in  ne- 
glecting their  function  as  preachers  of  righteous- 
ness, to  take  up  political  agitation.  It  is  seldom 
that  young  men  and  women  go  to  the  bad  whose 
parents  and  whose  pastors  have  properly  taught 
and  trained  them.  It  is  as  true  today  as  it  was 
two  thousand  years  ago  that  the  one  sure  reliance 
in  the  face  of  moral  hazard  is  moral  force;  and 
it  will  be  true  to  the  end  of  time. 

In  illustration,  read  the  following  letters,  which 
I  have  clipped  from  newspapers. 


CHARACTER  AND  CODDLING  271 

To  the  Editor: 

Will  you  kindly  advise  me  as  to  what  course 
I  shall  pursue  concerning  a  newsdealer  who  sells 
my  seven-year-old  boy  cinnamon  cigarettes.  Is 
there  a  law  that  reaches  him  or  shoidd  I  consult 
a  lawyer?  Your  advice  will  be  sincerely  appre- 
ciated. 

MOTHEE. 

The  editor  advises  this  mother  to  complain  to 
the  Court. 

The  second  is  from  a  newspaper  of  our  rural 
South: 

To  the  Editor: 

On  looking  over  your  copy  of  Friday,  I  was 
horror  struck  to  see  a  whiskey  advertisement  in 
it.  Fortunately  my  three  fine,  growing  boys  had 
not  seen  the  paper  yet,  and  I  destroyed  it  at  once, 
even  though  my  husband  had  not  read  it  and 
woidd  be  disappointed.  That  advertisement  might 
have  started  my  boys  on  a  downward  course.  How 
can  a  mother  maintain  her  influence  ivhen  such 
temptations  find  their  ivay  into  the  very  home? 
Can  nothing  induce  you  to  stop  this  wrong f 

ANXIOUS   MOTHER. 

What  is  this  first  mother,  who  needs  the  police 
to  keep  her  boy  from  buying  and  smoking  cinna- 
mon cigarettes,  when  he  is  seven  years  old,  going 
to  do  with  him  when  he  is  fourteen?  She  wil] 
have  to  call  out  the  militia. 

And  this  other  mother, — her  sons  are  going  to 


272  THE  TRUTH  OP  THE  GOSPEL 

see  whiskey  advertisements,  and  whiskey  stores, 
and  whiskey  itself,  some  time.  They  are  going  to 
see  other  things  and  places  and  people  far  worse. 
The  only  way  to  avoid  seeing  them  is  to  pnt  their 
eyes  out.  What  are  they  going  to  do  then?  And 
what  is  she  going  to  do  then? 

Millions  and  tens  of  millions  of  young  children 
keep  out  of  places  that  they  are  bid  keep  out  of, 
because  they  would  not  thus  disobey  their  fathers 
and  mothers.  They  are  kept  in  check  by  fear  and 
love  both.  But  it  is  clear  that  this  seven-year-old 
neither  loves  nor  fears  his  mother;  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  he  should, — a  mother  so  character- 
less and  helpless  as  to  depend  on  the  complaisance 
of  the  storekeeper  or  the  authority  of  the  court  to 
keep  her  little  child  out  of  a  forbidden  store. 

The  mistake  these  mothers  make  is  in  thinking 
that  their  children's  well-being  depends  on  re- 
moving every  temptation  and  danger.  But,  if  this 
were  all,  they  would  grow  up  moral  invertebrates. 
And,  besides,  even  with  all  outward  temptation 
removed  (if  such  a  thing  were  possible),  there 
would  be  the  temptations  imbedded  in  their  own 
nature, — which  no  surgery  can  get  at,  and  which 
in  themselves  are  enough  to  wreck  their  lives, — 
tempests  of  passion,  infirmities  of  temper,  selfish- 
ness. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  we  should  remove 
temptation  of  certain  sorts  or  of  excessive 
urgency.  For  example,  we  try  to  keep  our  chil- 
dren from  evil  companions.  But  it  is  not  true  that 
it  would  be  wise  to  remove  all  temptation.  The 
stripling  will  build  up  his  moral  thews  and  bulk 


CHARACTER  AND  CODDLING  273 

to  manhood's  proportions  by  grappling  with  evil, 
even  at  the  cost  of  an  occasional  fall.  He  need 
not,  indeed,  seek  it  out :  he  is  not  wise  enough  for 
that.  The  routine  of  life  will  put  him  in  the  way 
of  temptations  many  and  various.  Temptation  is 
for  the  character  what  discomfort  is  for  the  flesh. 
In  general,  we  avoid  bodily  discomfort.  Yet  often 
we  recognize  it  as  an  indispensable  condition  of 
health,  of  eminence,  of  success ;  as  in  the  training 
of  an  athlete. 

The  main  dependence,  for  our  boys  and  girls, 
should  be  in  the  building  up  of  character, — of 
principle,  of  will-power,  of  conscience, — such  as 
shall  carry  them  through  temptations.  Boys  who 
would  become  drunkards  merely  through  reading 
a  whiskey  advertisement  are  in  a  world  that  was 
never  intended  for  beings  so  ill  equipped.  ''Put 
on  the  whole  armor  of  God",  said  St.  Paul;  and 
the  armor  he  speaks  of  is  the  Christian  character ; 
an  armor  meant  for  attack  as  well  as  defence. 
This  is  a  world  of  temptations  within  and  without, 
daily,  hourly.  Our  security  is  within  ourselves 
or  nowhere.  The  right  discipline,  taught  us  at 
first,  and  later  applied  by  ourselves,  will  cause  that 
some  temptations  shall  be  wholly  outgrown,  and 
others  put  in  subjection.  But  the  time  will  never 
come  when  temptations  shall  lose  their  power.  As 
some  are  outgrown,  our  very  progress  will  gen- 
erate others.  Life  will  always  be  a  struggle;  of 
which  the  issue  will  largely  depend  on  the  wisdom 
and  perseverance  with  which  the  inward  man  is 
built  up.    A  strong  character,  not  an  easy  situa- 


274  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

tion,  is  the  ideal,  not  only  of  the  Gospel,  but  of 
every  moral  discipline. 

This,  too,  is  the  thought  of  the  great  Archbishop 
of  York,  the  late  Dr.  Magee,  Primate  of  England, 
when  debating  a  local  option  bill,  in  the  house  of 
lords,  in  1872 :  "I  entertain  the  strongest  dislike 
to  the  Permissive  Bill.  I  cannot,  perhaps,  express 
it  in  a  stronger  form  than  by  saying  that,  if  I 
must  take  my  choice — and  such  it  seems  to  me  is 
really  the  alternative  offered  by  the  Permissive 
Bill — whether  England  should  be  free  or  sober,  I 
declare,  strange  as  such  a  declaration  may  sound 
coming  from  one  of  my  profession,  that  I  should 
say  it  would  be  better  that  England  should  be 
free  than  that  England  should  be  compulsorily 
sober.  I  would  distinctly  prefer  freedom  to  so- 
briety, because  with  freedom  we  might  in  the  end 
attain  sobriety;  but  in  the  other  alternative  we 
should  eventually  lose  both  freedom  and  so- 
briety". 

Profound  words,  ''free  and  sober"!  What  is 
this  but  a  variant  of  Cowper's  mighty  phrase  (in 
his  hymn,  "Hark,  my  soul,  it  is  the  Lord"),  "free 
and  faithful".  Between  them,  these  two  words 
say  everything. 

If  this  seven-year-old  child  were  being  brought 
up  with  a  proper  regard  for  his  parents,  and  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  he  would 
be  in  no  danger  from  cinnamon  cigarettes  or  the 
vender  of  them.  If  these  three  likely  lads  were 
rightly  taught  their  duty  to  God,  to  their  neigh- 
bor, and  to  themselves,  they  need  fear  no  whiskey 
advertisements ;  nor  their  mother  for  them. 


CHARACTER  AND  CODDLING  275 

''The  kingdom  of  God  does  not  consist  in  the 
practice  of  this  or  that  separate  virtue,  but  in  the 
choice  of  the  highest  good,  which  regulates  in- 
dividual acts"  (Gould's  St.  Mark,  10.23,  Inter- 
national Critical  Commentary). 

Our  security  is  in  character,  not  coddling. 

II 

There  is  a  cognate  line  of  thought,  full  of  sug- 
gestion for  our  subject,  to  which  I  can  do  little 
more  than  call  attention  here.  It  is  well  presented 
in  "  Hauptprobleme  der  Ethik",  by  Professor 
Paul  Hensel,  of  Erlangen  University,  in  the  last 
chapter,  on  ''Ethik  und  Kultur".  I  give  a  free 
translation  of  the  passages  particularly  in  point. 

"An  increase  in  the  number  and  magnitude  of 
temptations  is  bound  up  with  every  forward  step 
in  social  evolution.  How  petty  do  the  tempta- 
tions seem  that  the  savage  and  semicivilized  man 
has  to  struggle  with,  in  comparison  with  the  re- 
fined solicitations  that  throng  upon  us  civilized 
men  at  every  forward  step. 

"It  is  these  considerations  that  have  often  led 
men  to  formulate  the  severest  indictment  against 
civilization  itself;  and  many  pious  souls  have 
sought  escape  out  of  the  entire  cultural  milieu,  to 
live  as  hermits  or  monks.  .  .  .  It  is  a  question 
whether  such  a  temptationless  life  deserves  the 
term  moral.  ...  It  is  certain  that  it  lacks  an 
essential  characteristic  of  the  moral  life,  namely, 
the  element  of  strife,  and  the  activity  of  the  ethi- 
cal will  in  strife.  The  only  temptation  I  am 
actually  a  match  for,  the  only  one  my  ethical  will 


276  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

has  actually  triumphed  over,  is  that  which  I  have 
confronted  and  conquered  in  real  life.    .     .     . 

''Aristotle  is  quite  right  when  he  asserts  that 
morality  must  approve  itself  in  actual  test;  just 
as  it  is  not  enough,  in  order  to  be  crowned  victor, 
to  be  in  possession  of  the  strength,  but  the 
strength  must  descend  into,  and  demonstrate  it- 
self in,  the  field  of  conflict. 

**It  is  this  very  accumulation  and  multiplication 
of  desirable  objects,  every  one  of  which  may  be- 
come a  snare,  that  civilization  lays  claim  to  and 
finds  one  of  its  highest  values  in.  What  Fichte 
deduced  from  the  totality  of  the  external  world, 
namely,  that  it  is  all  meant  as  material  and  field 
for  the  exercise  of  our  moral  faculty,  holds  good 
of  the  totality  of  civilization's  advantages. 
Through  civilization  we  attain  an  expansion  and 
sweep  that  is  wholly  foreign  to  man  in  a  state 
of  nature.  We  have  the  possibility  of  being  good, 
— and  of  being  bad  too, — in  far  richer  measure 
than  is  possible  to  primitive  man.  Because  of  the 
bad  possibilities,  the  effort  is  sometimes  made  to 
remove  as  many  temptations  as  possible  out  of 
the  life  of  the  civilized  man;  but  this  effort  is  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  claims  and  rights  of 
the  ethical  domain.  There  may,  indeed,  be  a 
pedagogical  value  in  not  exposing  the  immature 
ethical  will  to  the  full  weight  of  the  multiplied 
temptations  presented  by  an  advanced  civiliza- 
tion; though,  even  so,  that  is  a  mean  education 
which  will  pack  its  pupil,  physically  and  mor- 
ally, in  cotton.    One  thing  is  sure ;  exemption  from 


CHARACTER  AND  CODDLING  277 

temptation,  if  lasting,  will  produce  no  moral 
being. ' ' 

This  is  a  profound  thought  of  Hensel's, — that 
the  advance  of  civilization  has  an  ethical  import, 
offering  an  ethical  advantage,  and  presenting  an 
ethical  danger.  Some  old  sins  may  lose  their 
hold;  but  new  ones  are  bora.  The  accomplished 
penman  may  turn  forger:  had  he  never  learned 
to  write,  he  would  not  have  faced  this  temptation. 
The  new  temptations  that  arise,  with  progress,  are 
both  more  numerous  and  more  subtle  than  the 
original  ones  that  they  displace.  It  is  perhaps  be- 
cause of  this  net  increase  in  the  weight  and  num- 
ber of  temptations  that  the  earlier  civilizations, 
starting  out  with  so  much  virility  and  promise, 
finally  came  to  grief.  It  is  a  fact,  I  think,  that  a 
robuster  moral  sense  is  needed  to  sustain  a  com- 
plicated and  advancing  society.  Thus  primitive 
men  perish,  when  suddenly  exposed  to  our  ad- 
vanced culture:  they  cannot  bear  up  under  our 
moral  burden. 

What,  then,  is  our  security,  if  we  are  not  to 
take  to  the  wilderness!  It  is  certainly  not  in  the 
multiplication  of  drastic  laws,  ever  more  numer- 
ous and  more  drastic.  These  cannot  keep  pace 
with  the  growing  demands :  they  will  break  down 
or  be  burrowed  through  and  through,  and  leave 
a  moral  chaos.  Our  one  and  only  safe  reliance 
is  an  ethical  sense  advancing  in  vigor  and  delicacy 
and  certitude  with  life's  advancing  demands. 

This  is  what  our  philosophies  are  deducing 
from  painstaking  study  and  observation  of  so- 
ciety.   Yet  nineteen  hundred  years  ago  Jesus  was 


278  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

in  possession  of  this  truth,  seemingly  without 
effort:  "The  kingdom  of  heaven",  he  said,  "is 
within  you".  St.  Paul  developed  the  thought, 
teaching  that  Christians  "walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit"  (Eom.  8.4),  and  that 
the  motive  energy  is  "Christ  in  you". 

Dr.  Hensel  goes  on  to  illustrate  this  principle 
by  a  living  example : 

"The  Temperance  Movement  in  the  United 
States  proposes  as  its  goal  the  prohibition  of  the 
traffic  in  alcoholic  drink.  So  far  as  it  claims  social 
and  hygienic  grounds,  the  motive  is  laudable ;  but 
when  predominantly  ethical  grounds  are  alleged, 
a  sharp  protest  is  called  for.  Whether  the  people 
that  live  and  grow  up  in  such  a  community  actu- 
ally possess  the  virtue  of  temperance  can  be  de- 
cided only  when  they  come  into  a  situation  where 
they  are  tempted  to  drink.  Otherwise  they  de- 
rive as  little  moral  advantage  from  their  absti- 
nence as  the  savage  in  the  jungle  from  the  fact 
that  he  has  never  been  guilty  of  the  dishonesty 
of  tapping  an  electric  wire  to  steal  the  current". 

Hensel 's  thought  is  that  the  forcible  elimination 
of  the  temptations  that  naturally  come  with  ad- 
vancing civilization  is  a  lapse  to  a  lower  ethical 
and  cultural  level.  Not  the  surgeon,  but  the  good 
physician,  is  needed  here ; — better  yet,  the  hygien- 
ist.  Not  the  removal  of  temptation,  but  the 
strengthening  of  the  moral  nature,  is  the  thing. 

Ill 

It  is  true  that  there  are  some  who  are  unequal 
to  the  full  measure  of  Christian  liberty.  Nietzsche 


CHARACTER  AND  CODDLING  279 

makes  a  distinction  between  what  he  calls  ''master 
morality"  and  ''slave  morality";  that  is,  a  dif- 
ference in  the  code  of  ethics  for  each  class.  His 
general  treatment  of  the  question  is,  like  most 
of  his  philosophy,  unbalanced.  But  the  Gospel, 
in  a  sense,  and  perhaps  the  only  true  sense,  con- 
tains some  distinction  of  this  kind,  as  follows: — 
Our  Lord  came  as  the  example  of  the  perfectly 
free  man,  the  man  physiologically  and  psycholog- 
ically whole  and  sound.  He  came  eating  and 
drinking,  fond  of  banquetings,  and  free  from  the 
rigor  of  the  Baptist, — yet  without  excess. 

Still,  to  those  who  are  such  slaves  to  their  habits 
and  infirmities  that  even  his  Good  News  cannot 
altogether  free  them,  he  enjoins  that,  if  the  right 
hand  or  foot  be  a  cause  of  scandal,  the  offending 
member  be  cut  off,  even  at  the  cost  of  going 
through  life  maimed.  This  might  be  called  a  form 
of  "slave  morality".  But  it  was  not  given  for 
all,  nor  for  most, — surely  not  to  those  whom 
Christ  had  made  free  indeed,  to  whom  the 
"master  morality"  of  Jesus  can  apply. 

It  is  true  that  the  Church  has  had  all  the  cen- 
turies to  build  up  temperance  on  these  large  free 
lines.  Yet,  here  and  there,  men  continued  to  get 
drunk  after  eighteen  hundred  years  of  "drinking 
unto  the  Lord".  The  answer  is  that  the  church 
did  much,  and  in  fact  all  that  the  conditions  under 
which  men  lived  made  possible.  A  civilization 
was  being  built  up  out  of  barbarism.  Men  were 
coarse,  ignorant,  pulsing  with  physical  energies, 
without  mental  resources.  Their  indulgences 
were  in  keeping.    The  church  could  do  so  much, 


280  THE  TRUTH  OP  THE  GOSPEL 

and  no  more.  But  that  "mucli"  was  very  consid- 
erable indeed.  The  greater  part  of  Christendom 
was  made  temperate.  It  was  only  the  Teutonic 
peoples  that  drank  to  excess,  and  not  all  of  them. 
And,  among  them,  as  soon  as  education  and  in- 
dustry opened  up  new  outlets,  it  was  possible  to 
grapple  with  intemperance,  and  other  excesses. 
In  fact,  men,  of  themselves,  under  these  better 
conditions,  freely  choose  the  way  of  moderation. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   NEW   AND   LIVING   WAY 


The  Jew  was  not  so  temperate  in  Bible  times 
as  he  has  been  since.  Eebukes  for  drunkenness 
are  frequent  in  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Those  rebukes  would  be  without  point  for 
the  Jews  now.  Just  how  common  the  misuse  of 
drink  then  was  it  is  hard  to  say ;  but  it  may  have 
been  commoner  than  is  usually  supposed.  The 
Jewish  people  have  acquired  temperance  through 
a  long  discipline ;  and  it  was  not  the  discipline  of 
total  abstinence  or  prohibition.  It  was,  largely, 
the  discipline  of  religion.  In  this  they  called  into 
exercise  a  principle  profound  and  far-reaching,  a 
principle  that  belongs  as  fully  to  Christianity,  but 
which  has  been  slurred  by  rigorism.  The  prin- 
ciple is:  "Consecration,  not  Repression";  and 
it  applies  to  everything  not  in  itself  wrong.  If 
wine  was  debauched  by  some  to  evil,  the  ancient 
Hebrews  rescued  it  by  placing  it  in  still  closer 
connection  with  God.  "Holy  unto  the  Lord"  they 
wrote  over  it;  and  over  all  else  that  was  capable 
of  it.  It  was  the  same  fruitful  wisdom  as  led  the 
early  Christian  Church  to  take  over  and  appropri- 
ate to  Christian  uses  the  anniversaries,  buildings, 
and  statues  of  paganism.  The  rigorist,  on  the 
other  hand,  where  there  is  abuse,  would  repress. 
He  has  attempted  it  with  the  theatre,  dancing, 

281 


282  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

cards.  He  is  attempting  it  with  drink.  He  is 
threatening  it  with  tobacco.  That  was  not  the 
way  of  Jesus.  He  did  not  destroy:  he  made  over, 
and  consecrated  by  a  new  and  living  way.  The 
Psalmist  rightly  differentiates  men  fiercely  de- 
structive in  their  wrath  from  the  wise  and  patient 
Lord,  Though  they  curse,  yet  bless  thou  (Ps. 
109.27,  Prayer  Book).  The  Benedictine  monks 
were  acting  on  this  principle,  when  they  inscribed 
on  their  bottles  of  liqueur  the  D.O.M.,  ''to  God, 
Best,  Greatest";  this  was  Consecration,  not  Ee- 
pression.  All  that  is  not  in  itself  evil,  all  that  has 
possibilities  of  innocence  and  good,  should  be 
saved,  amplified,  and  enriched  by  being  brought 
into  relation  with  God:  the  danger  of  excess  is 
minimized  by  placing  the  act  of  drinking  in  a 
better  setting  and  environment.  The  ancient 
Greeks  and  Romans  poured  out  a  small  portion 
of  their  drink  as  a  libation  to  the  gods,  before 
drinking  themselves.  Now,  though  there  was 
much  that  was  immoderate  and  immoral  in  their 
pantheon,  may  not  the  spirit  of  this  act  have  had 
something  to  do  with  their  high  level  of  temper- 
ance? 

In  this  spirit  the  Greek  Church,  in  the  mar- 
riage service,  always  reads  as  the  Gospel  the 
story  of  the  Miracle  at  Cana  of  Galilee;  and  part 
of  the  marriage  rite  consists  in  the  partaking  of 
wine  by  bride  and  bridegroom.  I  think  each  sips 
the  wine  three  times,  with  symbolic  allusion  to 
the  Holy  Trinity.  This  custom  has  a  connection 
with  Judaism;  where,  as  we  have  seen,  wine  is 
used  to  consecrate  the  marriage. 


THE  NEW  AND  LIVING  WAY  283 

It  is  no  gain  to  temperance  to  substitute  grape- 
juice  for  wine  in  the  Holy  Communion.  Ratlier 
is  it  a  surrender,  an  abandonment,  to  the  enemy 
of  useful  ground.  Less  wine  is  not  drunk;  and 
what  is  drunk  is,  so  far  as  this  de-secration  is 
known  and  attended  to,  drunk  under  a  religious 
outlawry  that  can  do  only  harm.  Even  the 
*'Prosits",  ''Gesundheits",  "Healths",  ''Pros- 
perity" may  have  a  social  and  spiritual  value. 
What  enhances  fellowship  is,  so  far,  good:  the 
world  needs  it;  it  is,  in  a  way,  sacramental. 
There  is  something  more  than  a  pleasantry  in  the 
saying  that,  while  you  have  often  seen  a  merry 
group  laughing  and  joking  over  their  glasses  of 
beer  or  wine,  no  one  ever  saw  a  group  of  people 
making  merry  around  the  to^vn  pump. 

Far  more  than  eating,  drinking  is  felt  to  be  a 
social  act,  literally  a  kindly  thing,  which  binds 
together,  for  the  nonce,  into  a  sort  of  family  those 
who  drink  together.  Witness  the  fine  word 
symposium,  ''a  drinking  together".  Cicero  af- 
fected to  disparage  this  Greek  word  for  a  festive 
gathering,  as  well  as  its  Greek  alternative 
*  *  syndeipnon ",  ''an  eating  together",  in  favor  of 
the  term  employed  by  the  Romans,  "convivium", 
"a  living  together";  since  a  "living  together"  is 
so  much  more  refined  than  a  mere  "drinking"  or 
"eating"  together.  Now,  while  "syndeipnon" 
has  been  entirely  lost  to  us,  and  "symposium"  is 
perhaps  oftener  used  in  a  literary  sense,  it  is  no 
accident  that  "convivium"  has  persisted  only  by 
taking  over  the  sense  of  these  two:  "convivial" 
and    "conviviality"    invariably    suggest    merry- 


284  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

making  over  food  and  drink.  There  has  always, 
indeed,  been  a  spiritual  element  making  for 
brotherhood  in  the  festive  meal:  and  it  has  been 
more  intimately  connected  with  the  drink  than 
with  the  food; —  perhaps  for  two  reasons; — the 
first,  that,  while  a  hearty  meal  rather  dulls  the 
spirits,  drink,  on  the  contrary,  enlivens  them; 
and,  second,  drink, — say  wine  or  mead  or  what- 
ever it  may  be, — is  a  more  highly  artificial,  that 
is,  more  human,  product  than  food;  since  food 
can  be  prepared  for  the  next  meal  directly  from 
nature's  materials,  whereas  drink  requires  weeks 
or  months  or  years. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  rough  convivialist  who  in- 
sists, on  pain  of  trouble,  that  everybody  shall 
drink  with  him,  at  his  expense,  is  moved  by  an 
instinct  that,  at  bottom,  is  healthy  and  fine:  he 
is  trying,  in  his  crude  way,  to  be  "friends"  with 
everybody,  and  to  have  everybody  ' '  friends ' '  with 
him; — ''that  they  may  be  one".  This  social  in- 
stinct in  drinking  leads  to  serious  abuse;  but  so 
does  every  other  fine  endowment  of  our  nature; 
witness  the  reproductive  instinct;  or  the  artistic. 
How  much  better  if  this  spontaneous  "kindli- 
ness" could  be  brought  under  the  sanction  of  the 
religious  nature !  Then  it  would  be  restrained  and 
directed  by  a  monitor  that  speaks  with  high  au- 
thority, an  authority  that  the  world  has  always 
respected,  and  always  will.  Churches  come  and 
go.  Creeds  come  and  go.  But  the  religious  in- 
stinct abides.  Happy  we,  if  we  can  make  it  a 
joy  forever!  Happy,  if  we  can  use  it,  not  pri- 
marily for  repression,  but  for  expression;  that, 


THE  NEW  AND  LIVING  WAY  285 

through  its  aid,  men  may  have  fuller  joy,  and 
fuller  life,  not  on  the  spiritual  plane  alone,  but 
on  all  planes ;  more  joy  in  foods  and  drinks ;  yes, 
in  baseball,  in  billiards  and  pool,  in  music,  in  be- 
coming clothes  and  ornaments.  All  the  natural 
instincts  are  to  be  consecrated  to  God.  Nor  does 
this  mean  that  they  must  cease  to  be  natural;  it 
means  that  God  must  come  down  and  take  pos- 
session of  them  on  their  own  levels.  They  must 
remain  natural,  and  yet  be  God-filled, — "the 
merry  harp,  with  the  lute*';  even  the  "bones", 
and  "rag-time",  and  vaudeville,  for  those  who 
find  their  satisfaction  so.  Always  there  will  be 
those  highest  levels  where  but  a  few  can  dwell; 
which  more  can  visit  occasionally;  which  the 
many  can  only  have  glimpses  of, — "One  star  dif- 
fereth  from  another  star  in  glory"; — but  each  in 
his  measure,  after  his  kind,  can  live  in  God, — the 
sleight-of-hand  man,  the  dancing  women,  the  cir- 
cus clowns.  If  it  is  not  so  now,  we  should  make  it 
so  by  consecration,  rather  than  impossible  by  re- 
pression. Instead  of  "This  or  God",  let  us,  where 
it  can  be  done,  make  it  "This  and  God";  for  so 
life  is  added  to.  Not  the  renunciation  of  these 
pleasures  of  sense,  but  the  conquest  and  use  of 
them  in  the  power  of  the  spirit,  is  the  thing.  The 
Church  should  shelter  and  consecrate  all  these 
hazardous  indulgences  (not  sinful),  not  only  that 
they  may  be  kept  from  doing  harm,  but  that  they 
may  become  instruments  of  positive  good.  Jesus 
himself  lived,  not  on  one  plane  only,  but  on  many. 
He  loved  to  pray;  yet  it  is  no  derogation  of  his 
glory  to  speak  of  the  wine-loving,  food-loving,  joy- 


286  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

loving  Jesus.  It  is  significant  that  his  robe  was 
''seamless  throughout":  was  it  not  of  superior 
quality?  And  did  he  not  enjoy  the  fragrance  of 
the  "oil  of  spikenard",  as  well  as  value  the  love 
that  bestowed  it?  He  loved  to  pray;  he  loved 
also  to  watch  the  children  at  their  games.  The 
religion  of  Jesus  is  not  made  joyous  enough ;  and 
that  is  one  reason  why  men  seek  their  joys  so 
largely  outside  it. 

Jesus  was  responsive  to  all  the  satisfactions  of 
life ;  yet  in  perfect  control  of  them  all.  He  could 
abound,  and  he  could  suffer  want.  His  sensibil- 
ities were  at  once  delicate  and  strong,  refined  and 
virile,  simple  and  luxuriant, — the  fibre  of  the 
gentleman,  the  child,  the  knight,  the  devotee,  the 
hero,  the  woman,  all  harmoniously  balanced.  Ee- 
ligion  must  beware  how  it  casts  this  prompting 
and  that  of  our  God-given  nature  into  the  outer 
darkness  as  common  and  unclean.  Its  real  mis- 
sion is  not  to  destroy,  but  to  save:  "God  sent 
not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world; 
but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved" 
(John  3.17).  Not  the  water-drinking  John,  but 
the  wine-drinking  Jesus  will  the  world  be  drawn 
to ;  not  to  John  in  the  desert,  but  to  Jesus  in  the 
busy  ways  of  men;  not  to  John  in  his  rough 
camel's  hair,  but  to  Jesus  in  his  seamless  robe, 
woven  from  the  top  throughout ;  not  to  John  sub- 
sisting on  locusts,  but  to  Jesus  "eating  and  drink- 
ing". 

II 

Of  the  two,  wine  and  water,  wine  was  the  pre- 
eminent symbol  of  our  Lord.    The  water  rite  of 


THE  NEW  AND  LIVING  WAY  287 

baptism  was  taken  over  from  John  the  Baptist.  The 
selection  of  the  wine-drinking  feast,  as  the  special 
rite  of  his  followers,  was  the  ordinance  of  the 
Lord.  There  was  also,  perhaps,  a  peculiar  ap- 
propriateness in  each.  Water-baptism  was  ap- 
propriate to  the  water-drinking  John:  wine  and 
the  joyous  meal  suitably  expressed  the  joy  given 
by  the  wine-drinking  Christ.  Water-baptism  typ- 
ified repentance,  cleansing  from  sin :  wine  typified 
the  joy  and  intoxication  of  spirit  proceeding  from 
him  who  is  the  True  Vine.  Eepentance,  symbo- 
lized by  baptismal  water,  is  a  colder  act  than 
attachment  to  righteousness  called  forth  by 
ardent  love  of  Christ  and  ardent  union  with  his 
spirit.  Eepentance,  too,  often  comes  from  fear. 
Jesus  introduced,  as  a  means  of  salvation,  a 
stronger  emotional  force,  that  of  joy,  salvation 
by  joy.  Eecall  how,  in  St.  John,  these  four  bright 
glad  words  recur,  ''light",  "life",  ''joy", 
''love",— 

"the  rivers  four  that  gladden. 
With  their  streams,  the  better  Eden 
Planted  by  our  Lord  most   dear". 

This  was  a  new  thing  in  the  history  of  the  soul, 
this  salvation  through  gladness;  and  Christians 
themselves  have  been  slow,  not  to  say  loth,  to 
learn  it;  perhaps  because  it  seemed  too  good  to 
be  true.  Yet  surely  joyous  attachment  to  good- 
ness will  do  more  than  cold  repentance.  The  new 
note  of  salvation  by  joy  distinguishes  the  mis- 
sion of  Jesus  from  that  of  John.  The  least  in 
the   kingdom   of   the   wine-drinking   Christ   was 


288  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

greater  than  the  greatest  of  the  followers  of 
water- drinking  John,  because  a  new  enthusiasm 
was  theirs,  an  enthusiasm  for  holiness  through 
union  with  Christ  that  showed  forth  all  the  gifts 
and  graces  of  the  Spirit  of  Holiness.  In  the  new 
rite  the  festal  banquet  best  typified  the  spirit  of 
Jesus, — the  bread,  the  solid  nourishment  of  life; 
and  the  wine,  the  joy  of  life, — and  both  proceed- 
ing from  Jesus.  The  Son  of  Man  came  "eating 
and  drinking".  This  banquet-loving  Christ  be- 
came the  bearer  of  the  religion  of  joy  that  was 
to  conquer  the  world.  Wlien  the  world  falls  from 
salvation,  it  is  too  often  from  lack  of  joy.  "I,  if 
I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  to  me"  (John  12.32)  means:  "If  I, — 
the  wine-drinking,  joy-loving  Christ, — be  lifted 
up,  I  will  draw  all  men  to  me".  Eeligion 
in  this  land  is  not  the  power  it  might  be 
today,  because  the  rigorist,  influential  beyond 
his  numbers,  is  lifting  up  the  water-drinking 
John  the  Baptist  in  place  of  the  wine-drinking 
Christ.  No  wonder  the  world  does  not  re- 
spond. The  water-drinking  John  did  not  draw 
the  world  to  him;  the  whole  world,  almost,  has 
followed  the  wine-drinking  Christ.  When  we 
realize  all  the  aspects  of  the  religion  of  joy 
founded  by  Christ,  we  shall  have  found  the  method 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  Jesus,  as  the  fre- 
quenter of  banquets,  as  the  drinker  and  the  pro- 
vider of  wine,  as  the  delighted  watcher  of  the 
child  actors  and  dancers  in  the  market-place,  as 
the  founder  of  the  festal  and  wine-drinking  me- 
morial of  himself,  so  naturally  and  beautifully 


THE  NEW  AND  LIVING  WAY  289 

named  the  Eucharist,  ''the  thing  of  joy  and 
grace",  the  emblem  of  man's  sustenance  and  joy, 
gives  us  the  key  to  the  solution  of  our  social  prob- 
lems. The  children  in  the  market-place,  we  have 
been  told,  typified  John  and  Jesus, — John  playing 
funeral,  calling  to  repentance,  and  beating  the 
breast; — Jesus  playing  wedding,  piping  and  bid- 
ding us  dance.  Such  was  the  difference  between 
the  new  dispensation  and  the  old  covenant  of  the 
law,  which  lasted  till  John.  A  fresco  in  the  Cata- 
combs accordingly  portrays  Christ  as  Orpheus, 
magically  charming  and  attracting  all  by  his 
music.  Dean  Stanley  even  says  (''Christian  Insti- 
tutions," Chap.  XIII.)  that  among  these  Chris- 
tian decorations  is  "Bacchus  as  the  God  of  the 
vintage". 

This  motive  of  joy  is  given  its  proper  place  as 
the  dominant  note  of  the  entire  Christian  career 
in  the  second  collect  for  Easter  Day  in  the  Epis- 
copal Prayer  Book, — "Grant  us  so  to  die  daily 
from  sin,  that  we  may  EVEEMORE  LIVE  WITH 
HIM  IN  THE  JOY  OF  HIS  RESURRECTION". 

Even  in  the  primitive  church  there  were  some 
who  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John  (Acts  18.25) ; 
who  had  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  the  Eoly 
'Spirit  was  given  (Acts  19.2).  When  they  were 
told  of  it,  these  were  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus.  And,  when  Paul  had  laid  his 
hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Spirit  came  on  them 
(Acts  19.3-6). 

Rigorism  today  seems  largely  to  know  only  the 
baptism  of  John  the  water-drinker,  not  that  of 
Christ  the  wine-drinker,  with  its  enthusiasm  and 


290  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

fulness  of  the  Spirit.  John  himself  called  atten- 
tion to  the  contrast:  I  baptized  you  in  water; 
hut  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  (Mark 
1.8).  The  baptism  of  the  one  was  a  cold  douche: 
the  baptism  of  the  other  was  the  baptism  of  fire, 
which,  even  while  it  cleanses,  fills  with  enthusiasm, 
with  love  and  joy  and  peace  and  inspiration. 
John's  teaching  still  left  men  in  bondage  to  the 
law,  and  encouraged  his  water-drinking  example. 
The  truth  in  Christ  set  men  free  from  all  this 
bond-service,  and  made  them  free  indeed:  If 
therefore  the  Son  shall  malce  you  free,  ye  shall  be 
free  indeed  (John  8.36).  But  this  freedom  is  not 
mere  wilfulness :  it  is  a  new  service  to  saving  love 
and  joy  and  peace  and  truth. 

Ill 

The  rationale  of  the  greater  success  of  Christ's 
secret  of  joy  is  that  it  secures,  in  the  best  and 
most  effective  manner,  all  that  is  called  for  in 
life  in  the  way  of  self-renouncement.  Self- 
renouncement,  taking  up  the  cross  daily,  the 
royal  way  of  the  Holy  Cross,  are  preeminent 
characteristics  of  the  itrue  Christian  life.  But 
their  truest  and  most  effective  source  is  joy.  For 
love  of  a  woman,  a  young  man  will  often  prac- 
tice any  extent  of  self-denial.  Ardent  love  of 
Christ  has  enabled  countless  martyrs  to  bear  tor- 
tures and  death.  And  the  spirit  of  joy,  by  bright- 
ening and  warming  and  inspiring  life,  is  the 
greatest  power  to  lift  man  out  of  degradation, 
selfishness,  and  sin.  The  Apostle  even  does  not 
scruple  to  ascribe  this  joy  as  a  motive  of  Jesus; 


THE  NEW  AND  LIVING  WAY  291 

''who,  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,  en- 
dured the  cross,  despising  shame"  (Heb.  12.2), — 
the  deep  and  stimulating  joy  of  Jesus.  The  one- 
time foolish  and  giddy  girl  often  becomes  a  dig- 
nified and  decorous  matron,  when  the  joy  of 
motherhood  has  given  her  a  new  motive  for  life. 
And  is  not  this,  too,  that  saying  which  He  spake 
unto  us,  being  yet  present  with  us,  "My  yoke  is 
easy,  and  my  burden  is  light"? 

And  so,  in  numerous  instances,  does  innocent 
joy  save,  and  give  power  to  practise  every  self- 
denial  that  life  calls  for.  The  Beatitudes  ring 
out,  in  each  verse,  the  note  of  joy,  "Blessed,  For- 
tunate, Happy".  It  is  a  profound  saying  of 
Goethe's,  too,  that  "We  possess  only  what  we 
enjoy". 

Of  the  mighty  power  of  joy  there  is  no  more 
universal  symbol  than  that  given  by  Jesus, — the 
wine-cup  and  the  banquet;  because  the  meal  is  a 
daily  reality,  and  at  the  same  time  one  of  the 
simplest,  oftenest  repeated,  and  most  familiar 
acts.  It  is  significant  that  Jesus  did  not  build 
up  his  discipleship  about  a  book ; — the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  yet,  was  not; — nor  about  a  priestly 
order;  nor  about  a  "great  renunciation";  but 
about  a  banquet,  a  feast  of  eating  and  drinking, 
bread  to  strengthen  man's  heart,  and  wine  that 
maketh  his  heart  glad,  true  bread  and  true  wine, 
both  alike  for  the  strengthening  and  refreshing 
of  body  and  soul  alike. 

Protestantism  once  raised  a  fierce  outcry 
against  the  church  of  Rome  for  withholding  the 
cup  from  the  laity,  even  alleging  that  this  vitiated 


292  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

the  nature  of  the  sacrament,  which  dealt  with  the 
blood,  as  well  as  the  body,  of  Christ.  Today 
rigorism  is  seeking  to  take  the  cup,  as  Christ 
drank  of  it,  away  from  laity  and  clergy  alike. 

The  Gospel,  God's  News,  is  a  Good  News  for 
both  body  and  soul,  a  message,  not  of  repression, 
but  of  lawful  sovereignty, — ''All  [things]  are 
yours,  and  ye  are  Christ's"  (1  Cor.  3.22).  **A11 
things  are  yours"  that  do  not  deny  you  to  Christ. 
Drink  is  one  of  these  privileges  of  the  children 
of  God,  by  the  witness  of  him  who  is  Faithful  and 
True;  who  both  himself  drank  and  commended 
and  commanded  it  to  his  followers.  Drink  is  right 
as  long  as  it  is  our  creature;  ours  to  let  alone, 
ours  to  take  up.  It  is  only  when  it  ceases  to  be 
ours,  and,  contrariwise,  becomes  our  master,  that 
drink  becomes  wrong. 


CONCLUSION 


The  Old  Testament,  Jesus,  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  Universal  Church  all  concur  in  blessing 
drink  as  a  good  gift  of  God.  Can  there  be  any 
higher  sanction  of  right  than  this?  If  these  four 
witnesses  of  righteousness  were  in  this, — all  of 
them, — ^wrong,  then  every  moral  certitude  goes. 
If  these  did  not  know,  how  can  you  or  I? 

The  verdict  of  religion  and  the  church  in  favor 
of  drink,  throughout  the  ages  and  throughout  the 
world,  was  so  little  questioned  that  no  opposition 
to  it  was  even  thought  of, — till  modern  times, — 
since  the  primitive  ascetics.  Even  in  modern 
times  that  opposition  has  been  confined  mainly  to 
the  habitats  of  rigorists, — who  in  their  charac- 
teristic bent  reproduce  those  ascetics.  The  mark 
of  both  is  the  distortion  of  a  truth,  namely  the 
superior  claims  of  the  soul  over  the  body,  of 
eternity  over  time.  The  consummation  of  this  dis- 
tortion is  Manichaeism,  the  3d  Century  heresy  of 
Mani;  who  taught  that  the  body  is  the  product 
of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  or  evil ;  and  that  the 
soul  is  the  product  of  the  kingdom  of  light,  or 
good.  Consequently  all  that  ministers  to  the  evil 
body  is  itself  evil.  In  the  same  spirit,  the  rigorist 
has  a  tendency  to  look  with  suspicion  on  these 
lower  satisfactions,  and  to  disallow  them,  as  far 
as  he  can.    If  the  lower  satisfaction  is  not  an 

293 


294  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

obvious  necessity,  and  if  it  easily  lends  itself  to 
abuse,  its  doom  is  soon  pronounced  thus:  *'It  is 
not  needed;  it  may  do  harm;  what  more  need  be 
said?" 

What  more  need  be  said?  Just  this:  ''Every 
creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  is  to  be  re- 
jected, if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving:  for  it 
is  sanctified  through  the  word  of  God  and  prayer" 
(1  Tim.  4.4). 

The  opponents  of  drink  as  sinful  fill  the  press, 
the  platform,  and  many  a  pulpit  with  their  de- 
nunciations. Over  large  sections  of  the  country 
they  prevail  in  legislation.  But  the  truth  of  God 
and  of  his  Church  is  not  with  them ;  and  therefore 
they  cannot  last,  Eemember,  again,  the  words  of 
Joubert :  ' '  The  austere  sects  excite  the  most  en- 
thusiasm at  first;  but  the  temperate  sects  have 
always  been  the  most  durable". 

God's  Word  and  God's  Church  teach,  directly 
in  respect  of  wine  and  what  they  call  "strong 
drink",  and  by  necessary  inference  of  all  drinks 
no  more  hazardous, — 

1. — That  it  is  right  to  drink. 

2.— That  it  is  right  to  buy  drink. 

3. — ^That  it  is  right  to  sell  drink. 

4. — That  it  is  right  to  make  drink. 

Only,  let  everything  be  done  decently  and  in  order. 
And  let  a  man  take  heed  how  he  drink. 

II 

I  cannot  close  this  book  better  than  by  quoting 
again,  as  best  summing  up  the  teaching  of  Bible 


CONCLUSION  295 

and  Church  on  the  subject  of  drink,  the  mightiest 
preacher  that  the  Christian  ages  have  produced, 
— St.  Chrysostom, — St.  John  of  the  Golden- 
Tongue, — Bishop,  Saint,  Martyr,  Ascetic  (347- 
407  A.  D.).— 

**Shun  excess  and  drunkenness  and  gluttony. 
For  God  gave  meat  and  drink,  not  for  excess,  but 
for  nourishment.  For  it  is  not  the  wine  that 
produces  drunkenness ;  for,  if  that  were  the  case, 
everybody  would  needs  be  drunken". — St.  Chry- 
sostom, Homily  20  on  Second  Corinthians. 

''Not  that  to  drink  wine  is  shameful.  God  for- 
bid! For  such  precepts  belong  to  heretics". — St. 
Chrysostom,  Concerning  the  Statues,  Homily  1.7. 

''Timothy  had  overthrown  the  strength  of  his 
stomach  by  fasting  and  water-drinking.  Paul, 
having  said  before,  'Drink  no  longer  water*,  then 
brings  forward  his  counsel  as  to  the  drinking  of 
wine". — Concerning  the  Statues,  Homily  1.8. 

"For  wine  was  given  us  by  God,  not  that  we 
might  be  drunken,  but  that  we  might  be  sober. 
.  It  is  the  best  medicine,  when  it  has  the 
best  moderation  to  direct  it.  The  passage  before 
us  [Paul's  advice  to  Timothy  to  'drink  a  little 
wine']  is  useful  also  against  heretics,  who  speak 
evil  of  God's  creatures;  for,  if  it  [wine]  had  been 
among  the  number  of  things  forbidden,  Paul 
would  not  have  permitted  it,  nor  would  have  said 
it  was  to  be  used.  And  not  only  against  the 
heretics,  but  against  the  simple  ones  among  our 
brethren,  who,  when  they  see  any  persons  dis- 
gracing themselves  from  drunkenness,  instead  of 
reproving  such,  blame  the  fruit  given  them  by 


296  CONCLUSION 

God,  and  say,  *Let  there  be  no  wine*.  We  should 
say  then  in  answer  to  such,  'Let  there  be  no 
drunkenness;  for  wine  is  the  work  of  God,  but 
drunkenness  is  the  work  of  the  deviL  Wine  makes 
not  drunkenness;  but  intemperance  produces  it. 
Do  not  accuse  that  which  is  the  workmanship  of 
God  [wine],  but  accuse  the  madness  of  a  fellow- 
mortal  '.  Otherwise  you  .  .  .  are  treating  your 
Benefactor  with  contempt. 

*'When,  therefore,  we  hear  men  saying  such 
things,  we  should  stop  their  mouths ;  for  it  is  not 
the  use  of  wine,  but  the  want  of  moderation,  that 
produces  drunkenness,  that  root  of  all  evils.  Wine 
was  given  to  restore  the  body's  weakness,  not  to 
overturn  the  souPs  strength.  .  .  .  For  what 
is  a  more  wretched  thing  than  drunkenness !  The 
drunken  man  is  a  living  corpse. — Concerning  the 
Statues,  Homily  1  11-12. 

"For  instance,  I  hear  many  say,  when  these 
excesses  happen  [women's  getting  drunk  and 
shaming  themselves  in  public],  'Would  there 
were  no  wine'.  0  folly,  0  madness!  When  other 
men  sin,  do  you  find  fault  with  God's  gifts?  And 
what  great  madness  is  this!  What!  Did  the 
wine,  0  man,  produce  this  evil  ?  Not  the  wine,  but 
the  intemperance  of  such  as  take  an  evil  delight 
in  it.  Say,  then,  'Would  there  were  no  drunken- 
ness, no  luxury';  but,  if  you  say,  'Would  there 
were  no  wine',  you  will  say,  going  on  by  degrees, 
'Would  there  were  no  steel,  because  of  the 
murderers;  no  night,  because  of  the  thieves;  no 
light,  because  of  the  informers;  no  women,  be- 
cause of  adulteries';  and,  in  a  word,  you  will 


CONCLUSION  297 

destroy  everything.  But  do  not  so;  for  this  is 
of  a  satanical  mind.  Do  not  find  fault  with  the 
wine,  but  with  the  drunkenness.  And,  when  you 
have  found  this  self-same  man  sober,  sketch  out 
all  his  unseemliness,  and  say  to  him,  'Wine  was 
given  that  we  might  be  cheerful,  not  that  we  might 
behave  ourselves  unseemly;  that  we  might  laugh, 
not  that  we  might  be  a  laughing-stock;  that  we 
might  be  healthy,  not  that  we  might  be  diseased; 
that  we  might  correct  the  weakness  of  our  body, 
not  cast  down  the  might  of  our  soul.'  " — St. 
Chrysostom,  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew, 
Homily  57.5. 


THERE,   IN   THAT   QUAETER,   LIES   THE   MORNING  I 


INDEX 


Alcohol,  229-235 
Ales,  180 
Ambrose,  148 
Apocrypha,  45 
Apostles,  103 
Apostolical  Constit.,  144 
Aquarians,  138 
Archbishop  Magee,  198,  274 
Aristotle,  276 
Asbury,  Francis,  178 
Asceticism,   135 
Athanasiua,  145 
Augustine,  St.,  152 

Bacchus,  289 
Baptism,  286 
Banquet,  291 
Baptist  Churches,  189 
Basil,  146 

Beet,  Rev.  Dr.,  108,  256 
Benedictine,   161,  282 
Bible  and  Drink,  6-130 
Buddha,  243 
Bunyan,  166 

Caesarea,  147 
Calvin,  79 

Canons,  Holy  Apostles,  144 
Catholic,  185,  195,  236 
Character  and  Coddling,  269 
Charity,  Christian,   105-128 
Chartreuse,  162 
Christian  Denomination,    190 
Christendom,  population,  201 
Chrysostom,  St.,  149,  295 
Church,  The,  131,  196,  211,  215, 
221,  226-236,   279 
Church  and  Drink  Traffic,  264 
"Churches  in  Action," 

188,  197,  263 
Church  in  England,  198 
Cities  and  Prohibition,  208-210 
Clement  of  Alex.,  140 
Coke,  Rev.  Thos.,  178 
Congregational  Chs.,  189 
Consecration  vs.  Repression,  281 
Convivial,  283 
Corinth.,  Ch.  of,  97-101,  104 


Council,  1st  Ch.,  128 
Country  and  Prohib.,  208 
Crafts,  Rev.  Dr.,  219 
Cyprian  of  Carthagg,  144 

Defoe,  166,  168 

Divorce,  211 

Dixon,  Prof.,  241,  243 

Drink,  meaning,  3 

consumption  of,  218 
traffic,  264 

Drunkenness,  129,  223 

Edersheim,  Dr.,  94 

Eichhorn,  Dr.,  122 

Encratites,   138,    142 

Encyclo.,  Bib.,  71 

Encyclo.,   Brit.,   on  Drink,   232 

England,  198,  200,  274 

Episcopal  Ch.,   185,   191 

Epistles,  97 

Eucharist,  289 

Eucken,  260 

Europe,  219 

Family,  211 

Fathers,  The,  140 

Fermentation,  63 

Finland,  185 

Force,  248 

French  Canadian,  216 

"Fruit  of  the  Vine,"  88,  92-95 

Geikie,  Dr.,  94 
Gladstone,  238 
Gleukos,  69 
Goldsmith,  166,  168 
Good  Samaritan,  74 
Gospels,  68 

Grape  Juice  Unferm.,  63,  87,  89, 
93,  198,  201,  283 
Greek  Ch.,  195,  282 

Hailperin,  Rabbi,  63,  90-93 
Harnack,  Prof.,  132-133 
Hastings'  Bib.  Die.  on  Wine, 

71,   104 


299 


300 


INDEX 


Hensel,  Prof.,  275 

Hirsch,  Rev.  M.  A.  L.,  195 

Humanitarianism,  269 

Industrial  Condit.,  227 
Intemperance,  223,  259 
Irenseus,  140 

Jerome,  149 

Jesus,  75-83,  95,  97,  242, 248, 286 

on  the  cross,  74 

the  norm,      137 

way  of,         268 
Jesus  ben  Siraeh,  45-49 
Jewish  Ency.,  60,  64 
Jews,  196,  281 

and  Pass.  Wine,  86-93 
John  Baptist, 

68,  75,  287-289,  290 
Jones,  Prof.,  267 
Josephus,  57 
Joubert,  138,  294 
Joy  as  Motive,  284-291 

Kansas,   211-215 
Knox,  John,  164 

Labor,  Organized,  227 

Lambeth  Conference,  200 

Law,  244-264,  290 

Levias,  Prof.,  88 

London,  223 

Lord's  Supper,  82,  96,  177,  283 

Love  Feast,  98-101 

Luther,  Martin,  125,  164 

Lutherans,  185,  195-196 

Maccabees,  50 

Magee,  Arehbish.,  198,  274 

Maine,  211-215 

Maniehseans,  152,  293 

Mareionites,  146 

Marriage,  213 

at  Cana,  77,282 

nuptial  Mass,  162,  282 

Methodism,  171-182,  188 

Middle  Ages,  159 

Milwaukee,  215 

Minnesota,  213 

Mohammed,  239,  243 

Monks,  160 

Moravians,  190 


Nazirite,  17,  68 
Nebraska,  211 
Newark,  N.  J.,  169 
New  Hampshire,  209,  216 
New  Jersey,  211-215,  249 
Nietzsche,  278 
Non-Conformity,  198 
North  Dakota,  211,  216 

Oinos,  69  and  following 
Oklahoma,  216 
Orange,  1st  Pres.  Ch.  of,  170 
Orpheus,  289 

Passover,  83,  88,  91-94 
Patrick,  St.,   159 
Paul, 

72-73,  97-128,  130,  155,  254 
Pennsylvania,  211,  216 
Peter,  103 

Pfleiderer,  Prof.,  258 
Philo,  51 

Pilgrim's  Progress,  166 
Popes,  164,  195 
Potter,  Bishop,  194 
Presbyt.  Church,  188-189 
Priests,  to  Abstain,  17 
Primitive  Ch.,  131,  155-157 
Prohibition,  204 
Public  House,  237 
Pulpit,  229 
Puritans,  169,  185-186,  197,  204 

Rabbinic  Lit.,  60 
Rainsford,  Dr.,  194 
Reehabites,  18 
Reformation,  164 
Reformed  (Dutch)   Ch,,  190 
Religion  and  Law  ,244 
Religious  Instinct,  284 
Rhode  Island,  209 
Richmond,  Va.,  250 
Rigorism,  125-126,  188,  202-203, 

268-269,  281,  286,  288, 

289,  292,  293 
Robinson  Crusoe,  166,  168 
Roman  Catholic,  194 
Rum,  Medford,  169 

Scandinavia,   185 
Schaff-Herzog  Ency.,  66,  95 
Scheiwiler,  Prof.,   185 
Science,  232,  241-243 


INDEX 


301 


Self-sacrifice,  290 
Septuagint,  44 
Shadwell,  Dr.,  232 
Slavery,    182 
Smollett,  223 
South,  The,  209 
Spurgeon,  Chas.  H.,  264 
Stanley,  Dean,  95,  289 
State,  The,  128,  244 
"Strong  Drink,"  14 
Swiss  Family  Rob.,  166,  168 
"Symposium,"  283 

Tabus,  136 

Taming  of  the  Shrew,  163 

Tatian,  132 

Tea,  Wesley  on,  176 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve,  133 

Temp.  Movement,  185,  205,  278 

Temptation,  272 

Teutonic,  280 

Theocracy,  169,  206-208,  250 

Tiroeh,  37-41,  42 


Total  Abstinence, 

185,  201-202,  239 
True  Temp.  Assoc,  237 
Twenty- third  Psalm,  42 
Two  Ways,  The,  267 

Vicar  of  Wakefield,  168 
Vulgate,  63 

Water  in  Eucharist,  131 

Webb,  Bishop,  193 

Weak  Brother,  Paul's, 

105-128,   155 

Wesleys,  The,   171-177,  190 

\^^litefield,  Rev.  Geo.,  177 

Wine,  in  Hebrew,  10,  63 

Greek,  68 

Bib.  Diet.,  60,  64,  66-67 

Wisconsin,  213-215 

Wyss,  168 

Yayin,  11-36,  49-50 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Piiooe  Henewals 
310/825-9188 


REC'DYRLM0V29'99 


THE  LIBRARY 

UMVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


3  1158  00294  5334 


AA    001  001  621    0 


ill 


i  i 


m 


i! 


i 


j  I  pyilllliilliilliill 
II 


1 


mm 


I 


I 


111  I 


n;if  i!!! 


iiiiiii 


r  (' 


:      I 


P 


II 


11 


mm 

m 


111 


{ 


liiilliii:!! 


Piiiiiiilli  ^^ 


m 


WimB 


m 


mm 


'Av 


mmm 


jiliiiiliHil 


!  1 ;  !' 


j{  I  |ii|  mn\  m  *  p  j!  Ii '  111  11 


